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

Re: substantive semantics change?

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:12:17 +0100
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDE391DA1.55522141-ONC1256DDC.0062B0E9-C1256DDC.006400AF@agfa.be>

>>Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>>In the absence of arguments that this change is editorial and not
>>>substantive, I ask that the chairs reopen the PR decision, in order
>>>to consider the resolution of Herman's last call comments which
>>>triggered this change.
>>As I recall, Pat is travelling in the early part of this week.  This
>>will hamper clarification of this issue.
>>The suggestion is that a substantive change, i.e. one visible in a
>>test case, has been inadvertently made without consulting the WG.
>>If true, that is unfortunate.
> My understanding however is that it is not true, and that as I said,
> no test cases are affected.
> Full disclosure: there is a case which COULD have been a test case
> but isn't, which would have been affected if had been a test case,
> which is
> { } entails { _:x rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .}
> which is not an valid LC2-entailment.  That is, the current semantics
> requires that some containermembership properties must exist, even if
> nobody talks about them.

This is indeed right (and nice to see those {} btw)
but I was nor sure if my actual code was doing the right
thing, but it did, at least we couldn't find a proof thing for

_:X rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .

(whereas we could find evidence for
rdf:_9270 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .
and for both case nothing else was given)

The MT gives a very clear account and that is really valuable!

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 13:12:34 UTC

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