W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: problem introduced by recent change to RDF MT

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:16:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030611.171604.68556521.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ihmc.us
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: Re: problem introduced by recent change to RDF MT
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:50:52 -0500

> >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.

I guess I didn't make my point correctly.

If rdf:type is not in V then I(rdf:type) is not defined so there is no way
that the semantic conditions can say that I(rdf:type) is in IP.

> 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.

Hmm.  Where else is appropriate then?

Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 17:16:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:03 UTC