Re: problem introduced by recent change to RDF MT

>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.


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

Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 16:50:57 UTC