Re: Post-Herman changes to RDF semantics document

>FYI
>
>I am currently expecting to vote against these changes if the question is put:
>
>cf.
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2004JanMar/0030
>
>Also, as far as I understand, the following test case changes:
>
>(from an entailment to a non-entailment. Peter suggests there are 
>approved test cases that would change)
>
><eg:p1> rdfs:range xsd:boolean .
><eg:a> <eg:p2> "true"^^xsd:boolean .
><eg:a> <eg:p2> "false"^^xsd:boolean .
>_:a <eg:p1> <eg:bl> .
>
>entails
>
><eg:a> <eg:p2> <eg:bl> .
>
>The magnitude of this change is one that requires a longer review 
>period than we have available. I also suspect that I disagree with 
>the content.
>I am not convinced that there is any big enough problem with the PR 
>document that is actually being fixed.
>
>To vote for this, *I* would need to be convinced, I would need to be 
>convinced that WebOnt were on-board, I would need to have had 
>sufficient time to discuss it in-depth with the HP implementors. 
>This is not feasible in the time we have.
>
>Jeremy

All agreed, if reluctantly.

Uptodate heads-up: the suggested changes have been greatly reduced 
and do not affect any semantics or entailments. They amount to a 
small correction to a mathematical slip, noted by Herman, in the way 
that D-interpretations were defined (the vocabulary was described 
slightly wrongly, and one of the conditions is superfluous.) See the 
proposed changes now at 
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004bb.html#defDinterp.

In case you don't see, they are:
-- the extra condition on the vocabulary of the interpretation
-- omission of 'and a subset of LV' in the second line of the table
-- adding 'and IL("sss"^^ddd) is in LV ' to the third line of the 
table (which is not strictly required but helps clarify things)
-- five paragraphs later, adding the sentence 'Since this is an 
rdfs-interpretation, it follows that all elements of the value space 
of any datatype in D must be literal values.', referring to the 
fourth condition. (See the last RDFS semantic condition and recall 
that ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)) = LV. )

Apart from some typo corrections, this is all.

Pat


>
>pat hayes wrote:
>
>>The suggested change can be seen at
>>
>>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004.html
>>
>>
>>particularly at
>>
>>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004.html#defDinterp
>>
>>See also
>>
>>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004.html#change
>>
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>
>>PS Ive  corrected some other typos and (deliberately) @@@@-trashed 
>>the 'this version' link.
>>
>>--
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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