- From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:29:09 +0100
- To: "Brian McBride" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Brian Archive McBride" <bwm@0-imap-1.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Rdf Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>Herman, Peter, > >After the flurry of recent discussion about the semantics doc, there is a >proposal to RDFCore to consider a minor expositional change to the document >along with some fixes to types. > >This proposal is made in the agenda for Friday's telecon, agenda item 10 of > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Jan/0053.html > >I would be grateful if you would look at these changes and say that they are >acceptable to you. > >Brian > The changes are acceptable, although the suggestion has not been adopted not to require all values of a datatype in a D-interpretation, to bring the definition of D-interpretation more in line with the rest of the RDF Semantics document, and to allow a completeness lemma for D-entailment. The small error that I noted in the definition of D-interpretation (in connection with the vocabulary formed by the datatype URIs in D) has been corrected, in an elegant way. Herman
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 07:31:33 UTC