- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:32:47 -0600
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > 8. (related). The definitions of rdf and rdfs entailment have been >> simplified so that they do not make explicit reference to a >> vocabulary. This is actually more conventional; and Herman pointed >> out that the more complicated definitions meant that entailment might >> not be transitive (aargh). The motive for introducing this >> complication in the definition in the first place has been removed by >> subsequent changes. This doesn't change any test cases. >> > >My understanding is that test cases do change - in particular the test cases > > >> rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test002 >> rdfms-seq-representation/Manifest.rdf#test004 > >which were incorrect according to the LC2 semantics doc, now become correct. They always were correct. Im not sure how the idea arose that they were not. The vocabulary restriction, which I have now removed, referred to the combined vocabulary of the antecedent and consequent, precisely in order to keep tests like this correct. Pat >So this is a substantive rather than an editorial change. (I am awaiting >feedback from HP implementors concerning this) > >Jeremy -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 11:32:49 UTC