Re: RDF Semantics: partial review

>>
>>"A name is from a vocabulary if ..."
>>I hope that this can be simplified.
>
>I am not sure how to make it any simpler than it is.
>
>>First, this is a forward reference:
>>the notion of vocabulary is defined (a few lines) later.
>>Second, a vocabulary is defined as a set of names.
>>So this smells like a circularity.
>
>It would be (harmlessly) circular if it were not for the part of the 
>definition which mentions typed literals. For example,
>
>"23"^^xsd:integer
>is from
>{xsd:integer}.
>
>>I think that it would be in the interest of the clarity of
>>the document if this redefinition of the word "from"
>>could be removed from the document.
>
>I need some word to use. Can you suggest an alternative?

See below.

>
>>
>>==
>>
>>Section 1.4
>>
>>the table: Semantic conditions for ground graphs
>>
>>line 3 needs to add [what I add between brackets]:
>>- if E is a typed literal [in V] then ..
>
>Actually that should be 'from V'. So added.

Due to this change, there seems to be an inconsistency
with the definition of simple interpretation.
IL is only defined for typed literals *in* V,
and used for all typed literals *from* V.

I continue to think that the terminology 'from V'
as being different from 'in V' is very confusing.
It seems that people will typically identify the two
notions.
Moreover, it seems that each use of 'from V' can be replaced 
by a use of 'in V', by just adding enough typed literals
to V.

The use of 'from V' in such a way distinct from 'of V' makes
the reader uncertain about each simple English preposition.
(For example, the document contains the sentence
"The vocabulary *of* a graph is the set of names
of a graph." (emphasis from document)
If a graph contains the literal "22"^^xsd:integer,
then is xsd:integer in the vocabulary of the graph?)

I would suggest to omit the terminology 'from V'.


[...]

>
>>As to lines 1 and 2 of these tables: I believe
>>that clarification would be helpful.
>>line 1 says: if E is a plain literal "aaa" then I(E)=aaa.
>>String quotes are removed from "aaa", but it seems that I(E) is a
>>string.  What is the definition here?
>
>The tables are all stated using the N-triples conventions. In this, 
>literal character strings are enclosed inside double quote marks. So 
>aaa here indicates the character string.

Thank you for the explanation.  I think that it would be helpful
to include this here in the document.

[...]

>
>>==
>>
>>Section 1.5
>>
>>the table: Semantic conditions for blank nodes
>>
>>It seems that line 1 would need to be replaced by
>>something like the following more complete statement:
>>-  If A is a mapping defined on the blank node E, then
>>    I+A(E)=A(E).
>
>I don't feel that that is necessary.
>

You cannot speak of A(E) unless it is defined.

[...] 



>
>>
>>Section 1.1
>>
>>typo: heirarchy
>>
>
>Fixed. I seem to have a localized dyslexia for that particular word.
>

I found another occurence of this typo in the document,
two paragraphs below the rdfs entailment lemma.


Other typos (in new text from yesterday):
themsleves
intepretation


Herman

Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 07:41:47 UTC