- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:37:16 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
At 14:15 24/02/2003 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>RDF Semantics document, >>last call version, 23 january 2003 >>These comments were mailed earlier to the WebOnt WG [1]. > >For the record, the editor accepts these comments as editorial and will >try to find ways to respond the them appropriately. Include [closed] on the subject line. Pat, please can try to remember to do this. Brian >>A consequence of the (new) setup of the RDF semantics >>is that for each occurrence of IEXT(x) or ICEXT(x), it >>should be clear that x is in the domain of the function >>involved. (For IEXT, this domain is the set IP. >>For ICEXT, the domain is the set IC; compare my >>other comment on this to rdf-comments [2].) >>For example, in Section 3.3 the semantic conditions on >>subClassOf and subPropertyOf take care of this explicitly. >>It seems that this point is not taken care of completely >>consistently throughout the document. > > I will do a check of the document looking for cases where this may be > ambiguous, and add wording to clarify as needed. > >> >>In Section 3.1, RDF interpretations, >>in the table defining an rdf-interpretation, IEXT(I(rdf:type)) >>is used before it is clear that I(rdf:type) is in the >>domain of this function (i.e., the set IP). >>Switching the first two lines of this table would remedy this. > >Will do. > >>Similarly, it seems appropriate to move the semantic >>conditions on IC and IP in Section 3.3: >>> IC contains ...[many items] >>> IP contains ...[many items] >>to become the first conditions, as each of the other >>conditions in this table actually uses one or more of these >>conditions. > >OK, I will probably do this or something similar. The ordering of the >semantic conditions is not considered significant (since they have to be >understood as conjoined) but if a re-ordering will be an expository >improvement then I am happy to make this change. > >> >>The semantic conditions on rdfs:range and rdfs:domain in Section 3.3 >>do not yet incorporate explicit domain assumptions as just >>discussed. It seems that additions such as the following need >>therefore to be made: >> >>If <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:range)) >>[then x is in IP and y is in IC] and >>[if, in addition,] <u,v> is in IEXT(x) then >>v is in ICEXT(y) >> >>If <x,y> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:domain)) >>[then x is in IP and y is in IC] and >>[if, in addition,] <u,v> is in IEXT(x) then >>u is in ICEXT(y) > >I will check the wording and make similar changes if needed to clarify the >intent. > >Pat Hayes > >> >>The last call versions of these statements (i.e., this text >>without the [...]-additions) seem to be >>remnants from the April 2002 version of the RDF MT, where >>IEXT as well as ICEXT had all of IR as their domain. >> >>Herman ter Horst >>Philips Research >> >>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0067.html >>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0348.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 Tuesday, 25 February 2003 09:36:28 UTC