- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:25:16 -0600
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
..... > > >True. I think that the best way to handle this is to just remove the >>word 'finite' from the statement of the lemmas, and add a remark in >>the appendix pointing out that if E is finite then the intermediate >>derived graph can also be taken to be finite. This restores the >>statements of the lemmas to their previous form without cluttering up >>the proofs. I will make this change. > >The word finite has not been removed from the statement of the >rdfs entailment lemma in the appendix. That is strange. It was removed in 2.4 but seems to have been edited back in 2.5. Clearly my fault: will fix. [...] > >>In view of this, it seems better to assume that each >>>rdf(s)-interpretation satisfies all of rdfV (and >>>therefore satisfies all RDF axiomatic triples). >> >>Yes, of course (now you have pointed it out :-). I will make this >>change. Peter has previously expressed a dislike for the 'crdV' >>construction, which was introduced only to keep the closures finite >>in any case and is therefore now irrelevant. > >It seems that this is change is not consistently applied to the >document. >The definition of rdfs interpretation includes "which contain only >names form V union rdfV union rdfsV". >This phrase should be removed, and similarly for rdf interpretations. It seems harmless, since this is the vocabulary of the interpretation. But it may indeed be misleading, so I have deleted it as you request. Thanks for the careful reading. 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, 6 November 2003 14:26:27 UTC