- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:34:38 -0600
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- 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. As applied to the semantic conditions, it should not be deleted. Of course an interpretation need only satisfy the semantic conditions on its own vocabulary, right? What would it even mean to require it to satisfy conditions more broadly? This is in accordance with the normal textbook definitions of satisfaction and entailment. Pat > >Herman -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Friday, 7 November 2003 10:34:48 UTC