- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:50:52 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>The recent changes in the RDF MT (10a June 2003) have resulted in the >following problem: > >An rdf interpretation I is now of an arbitrary vocabulary V. This means that >the domain of IS is V. However, V does not necessarily include the members >of the RDF vocabulary. True; this was deliberate. > This results in the potential breakdown of the RDF >semantic conditions. For example, there might not be a domain element >corresponding to rdf:type. There might not, indeed, in a simple interpretation of an RDF graph which did not use the URIref rdf:type; that was true previously, of course. However, the RDF semantic conditions require that IEXT(I(rdf:type)) contain at least infinitely many pairs of the form <x, I(rdf:XMLLiteral)>, so require that I(rdf:type) be in IP; and the first semantic condition requires that IP be a subset of IR, in every rdf-interpretation. So the conditions do not break down for rdf- (or rdfs-) interpretations. Pat PS. It may not be appropriate to be discussing details of an editorial draft on rdf-comments while it is in a state of flux. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 11 June 2003 16:50:57 UTC