- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 09:47:21 -0400 (EDT)
- To: phayes@ihmc.us
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> Subject: Re: review of July 15 draft of RDF Semantics document Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:31:46 -0500 [...] > >> >Silliness: > >> > > >> >rdf-interpretations do not just ``impose extra semantic conditions on crdfV > >> >and typed literals with the type rdf:XMLLiteral''. Why not just say that > >> >rdf-interpretations impose extra semantic conditions? > >> > >> Because this draws attention to the fact that they do not impose any > >> extra conditions on the rest of the RDF vocabulary. > > > >Well, sort of, but I consider the use of crdfV misleading. > > Im afraid I disagree. > > >It is true that there are rdf-interpretations that do not impose conditions > >on (the denotation of) rdf:subject. However, any rdf-interpretation that > >includes rdf:subject in its vocabulary does impose conditions on (the > >denotation of) rdf:subject. > > Only those which arise from its being a simple > interpretation. The text uses the word "extra > semantic conditions" to indicate this distinction. Huh? One of the RDF axiomatic triples is rdf:subject rdf:type rdf:Property . Doesn't this impose an ``extra semantic condition'' on rdf-interpretations that is on something outside the central RDF vocabulary? [...] peter
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2003 09:47:35 UTC