- From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:36:43 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
... > >> >>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. The phrase "for all names in (V union rdfV)" is not yet deleted from the definition of rdf-interpretations. Herman
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 07:37:36 UTC