W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2003

20030509#18 bwm Update status of pfps-08 if necessary

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 19:08:29 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Checking the semantics doc I find

This has been re-done somewhat as a result of email correspondence. The 
situation now is somewhat subtle. The actual conditions are stated as part 
of the rdf and rdfs semantics simply as conditions on XML literals 
considered as a syntactic category. This is what the comment was concerned 
with. Now, however, in D-interpretations, the 'built-in datatype' is 
introduced explicitly as an entity, and some text added here to clarify the 
importance of this for OWL-type reasoners. This allows non-datatype-savvy 
engines to use the XML syntax and also allows more sophisticated reasoners 
to build on D-interpretations.

We have an issue we are moving from not accept to accept and that require 
WG review.

Best I can figure here is that Peter was making a subtle point of formal 
semantics.  My vague understanding is (paraphrasing what Pat says above):

  - previously the semantics of xml literals were specified as semantic 
conditions in the RDF and RDFS semantics

  - there was a subtle problem (that escapes me) with making it clear that 
a datatype processor could really treat it like a datatype

  - this is fixed in the current ed's draft by making the built in data 
explicitly present in (all?) datatype interpretations and adding some 
clarifying text:

The semantic conditions for rdf interpretations impose the correct 
interpretation on literals typed by 'rdf:XMLLiteral'. However, a 
D-interpretation recognizes the datatype to exist as an entity, rather than 
simply being a semantic condition imposed on the RDF typed literal syntax. 
Semantic extensions which can express identity conditions on resources 
could therefore draw stronger conclusions from D-interpretations than from 
rdfs interpretations.

Seeing nothing I disagree with I invite Pat to propose the WG:

  - reopen pfps-08
  - accept pfps-08
  - approve the approach Pat has taken and this modified text

Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 14:07:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC