- From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:09:12 +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. > >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. The table we are talking about, "RDF semantic conditions", has three parts, none of which seems to need the additional phrase: - part 1 deals with the universe, not the vocabulary - parts 2 and 3 both make *explicit* that they talk about a certain name in V Therefore, it seems confusing to add that this table holds "for all names in (V union rdfV)". > >Pat > >> Herman
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 12:10:00 UTC