- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:57:37 +0200
- To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> 15: Semantics Issues > We have several semantics issues: > > horst-01 > pfps-01 > pfps-03 > pfps-05 > pfps-09 > > That I suspect we are ready to close, but we need a formal motion to > close them. > > For pfps-03 I note that the LC document and the current editors draft both say: [[ The editor believes that both of these descriptions, and also the closure rules described in section 4, are all in exact correspondence, but only the directly described model theory in sections 1- 3 should be taken as normative. ]] we could decide that that was sufficient, or Pat could add the theorem that Peter asks for. On pfps-01, I would be prepared to second the following proposal, if Pat were to propose it: PROPOSE: to accept pfps-01 and address it with the following text (**'s show changed text): [[ The datatype map which also contains the set of all pairs of the form <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#sss, sss>, where sss is a built-in datatype which has well-defined lexical and value spaces and a lexical-to-value mapping and is named sss in XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes [XML-SCHEMA2], eg decimal, string, is referred to here as XSD. ]] On pfps-09, I would be prepared to second the following proposal, if Pat were to propose it: PROPOSE: to accept pfps-09 and address it with the text in section 3.4 Datatyped Interpretations of the editors draft, for instance: [[ RDF provides for the use of externally defined datatypes identified by a particular URIref. ... Formally, let D be a set of pairs consisting of a URIref and a datatype such that no URIref appears twice in the set, so that D can be regarded as a function from a set of URIrefs to a set of datatypes: call this a datatype map. ]] For pfps-05 I am not convinced that the editors draft addresses it. I believe it is partially addressed by: rule rdfs1 in section 4.2 http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html#rdfs_entail but that the table of axiomatic triples seems to omit the following: rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource On pfps-05, I would be prepared to second the following proposal, if Pat were to propose it: PROPOSE: to accept pfps-05 addressed by rule rdfs1 in section 4.2 of the editors draft. I haven't got to horst-01. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 09:57:45 UTC