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

Re: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 09:04:53 +0300
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200305270904.53890.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> After 'Since RDF vocabularies are expressed as RDF graphs,
> vocabularies defined in other namespaces may be used to provide
> richer documentation.'
> ...add: 'Note that there are no model-theoretic consequences entailed by 
> any assertions represented in the value of the rdfs:comment.'

actually that is a little too strong, (there are some model-theoretic 
consequences), but as peter points out it is also not general enough.

This feels as though it is more an introductory paragraph explaining the 
difference between the formal semantics and the informal semantics, and 
highlighting those properties and classes (and rdf:nil) which are:
- not given special treatment in the fomal semantics
- and/or have some informal meaning associated in the schema doc

I suspect that paragraph can be written without the use of technical terms 
such as model theory.

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 03:04:46 UTC

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