- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:00:38 -0600
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>RDF Semantics document, >last call version, 23 january 2003 >Most of the corrections / editorial comments given below >were mailed earlier to the WebOnt WG [1]. For the record, all of these comments have been accepted as editorial changes by the editor and suitable corrections have been, or will shortly be, incorporated into the editor's draft. >Section 3.3, RDFS interpretations: >In the tables defining an rdfs-interpretation: > IC should also be listed to contain I(XMLLiteral) > IP is listed to contain I(rdfs:comment) and I(rdfs:label) twice Fixed >Section 3.3, RDFS interpretations: >note that the rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty condition >speaks of rdfs:Property instead of rdf:Property. Corrected >Section 4.1, Rdf-entailment and rdf closures >"Here xxx and yyy stand for any uriref, bNode or literal..." >However, xxx cannot be a literal. Wording clarified >Section 4.2, RDFS-entailment and RDFS closures >(note that naming of sections 4.1 and 4.2 is not entirely consistent) >Again, xxx cannot be a literal. >two typos: heirarchies, heirarchy Wording clarified, spelling fixed. >The triples > rdf:_1 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty . >etc. are taken to be part of the "axiomatic triples" >in Section 3.3. This is confusing, as they are clearly >not implied in the use of the phrase "axiomatic triples" >in part 1. of the definition of rdfs closure in Section 4.2. Wording will be fixed. >Appendix B, Proofs of Lemmas > >Plain Subgraph Lemma >The 'only if' is said to follow from the previous lemma, >but it seems to be easier to use the Herbrand interpretation >(which appears only hereafter). > >Proof of RDF closure lemma >Why is IP-sub-H not simply called HP, in line >with the definition of the interpretation I (and IP)? >There is no interpretation I here. Text fixed (from an earlier comment). The IP/HP conventions was found confusing by several readers, has been replaced by an explicit definition. >The proof of the "if" part of the second condition does not >clearly start with what can be assumed to be given >(namely, <p,H(rdf:Property)> is in HEXT(H(rdf:type)) ). >Moreover, this proof can be made somewhat shorter, as follows: > > Suppose <p,H(rdf:Property)> is in HEXT(H(rdf:type)). > Then rdfclos(E) contains the triple > p rdf:type rdf:Property . > so by the definition of Herbrand interpretation, HP contains p. Correction will be made (editorial corrections to lemma proofs are deliberately delayed until the rest of the text is considered completely stable.) >Section 3.2: Reification, containers > >The text on reification contains some rough spots, in my view. Editor agrees. This text has been re-worded in an attempt to make the points more clearly. >The second of the next two cited sentences is rather complicated >to follow. Therefore, I would suggest to add some explanation, >for example as between the following brackets []: >> This could be stated formally as follows: >> <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdf:subject)) >> just when x is a token of an RDF triple of the form >> >> aaa bbb ccc . >Suggestion: use instead the same example as given just before this: ><ex:a> <ex:b> <ex:c> . >> >> and y is I(aaa) [I(<ex:a>)]; similarly for predicate and object. Notice >> that the value of the rdf:subject property is not the subject >> uriref itself but its interpretation, and so this condition >> involves a two-stage interpretation process: we have to >> interpret the reified node - the subject [_:xxx] of the triples in >(this addition because _:xxx was called earlier reified triple) >> the reification - to refer to another triple, then treat >> that triple as RDF syntax and apply the interpretation >> mapping again to get to the referent [I(<ex:a>)] of its subject. >(this addition because 'referent' is undefined). > >> We emphasize that the semantic extension described here requires >> the reified triple that the reification describes - I(_:xxx) in >This is very confusing: several paragraphs earlier not I(_:xxx) >but _:xxx was called the reified triple. > > the above example - to be a particular token or instance of a >> triple in a (real or notional) RDF document, rather than an >> 'abstract' triple considered as a grammatical form. > >About containers: >> This should not be taken as meaning that these assumptions are false, >> but only that RDF does not formally entail >(here it should rather be something like:) [support entailments] >>that they must be true. Correction to text will be made. >Herman ter Horst >Philips Research > >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0313.html -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 11:00:30 UTC