- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:04:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: phayes@ihmc.us
- Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
I believe that the rules for rdfs entailments are still incomplete in the current version of RDF Semantics (Editors [sic] Draft July 27). For example, consider the RDF graph ex:foo ex:bar "<"^^rdf:XMLLiteral . ex:bar rdfs:range rdf:XMLLiteral . I believe that this graph has no rdfs-intepretations and thus that it rdfs-entails rdf:type rdf:type rdf:type . which I believe cannot be deduced from the RDFS entailment rules. peter From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> Subject: Re: pfps-05 RDFS closure rules Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:27:55 -0500 > >From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > >Subject: pfps-05 RDFS closure rules > >Date: 28 Jul 2003 16:28:28 +0100 > > > >> Peter, > >> > >> This message concerns a last call comment you raised on the RDFCore > >> semantics document recorded as: > >> > >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05 > >> > >> Since the WG first responded to this comment > >> > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0185.html > >> > >> the semantics document has undergone further refinement and I would like > >> to check with you whether the current editor's draft > >> > >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/ > >> > >> is a satisfactory disposition of your comment. Please, as usual, copy > >> www-rdf-comments@w3.org on your reply. > >> > >> Brian > > > >Unfortunately, this document still has problems with the RDF and RDFS > >entailment rules. The problems are less critical because the status of the > >RDFS entailment rules have been further downgraded. > > > >Currently the document states ``This terminology is agnostic as to whether > >XML data is considered to be identical to a character string'' (Section > >3). It also states that ``The document also describes complete sets of > >inference rules corresponding to the semantics de[s]cribed in the text'' > >(Section 0.1). > > Peter: > > Further to a WG decision on Friday, we have agreed that this > agnosticism is inappropriate; the semantics now insists that the > denotata of rdf:XMLliteral typed literals, and plain literals, are > never the same. The wording you cite above has been replaced with: > > "Any character string sss which satisfies the conditions for being in > the lexical space of rdf:XMLLiteral will be called a well-typed XML > literal string. The corresponding value, i.e. the Canonical XML data > corresponding to a well-typed XML literal, will be called the XML > value of the literal. Note that the XML values of well-typed XML > literals are in precise 1:1 correspondence with the XML literal > strings of such literals, but are not themselves character strings." > > Pat > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Thursday, 31 July 2003 07:06:12 UTC