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

Re: substantive semantics change?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:55:26 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Cc: der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <200311111555.26987.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

I was just double checking, and I seem to have previously misread the LC2 
semantics ... (if I looked at it all?? - I thought I had, but ...)

I satisfies E if I(E)=true, and a set S of RDF graphs (simply) entails a graph 
E if every interpretation of the vocabulary of (S union E) which satisfies 
every member of S also satisfies E

and similarly for the other entailments.
This seems to cause the relevant test cases to be correct.

(i.e. introducing rdf:_1 on the RHS is sufficient to trigger the existence of 
the relevant triples)

 and the changes made in response to Herman's comments would hence be (closer) 
to editorial.

I was asked about the following entailment:



_:a rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .

This would appear to be false in the LC2 docs, and true in the latest editors 

However, since if that is the case, this entailment was in the transitive 
closure of the LC2 entailment this is probably an improvement (albeit a 
substantive one).

Once Pat comments on these issues, I will consult further with the HP 
developers and get back to the WG - for now I do not see much of an issue 
(i.e. the change I see at the moment is smaller, and better motivated - I 
would still like to see a WG decision to make a substantive change).

It remains unclear to me when or why this aspect of the semantics changed - 
the LC1 document does not appear to contain the entailments.

but that's water under the bridge.

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 09:56:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:26 UTC