Re: RDF Semantics: a few small comments

>Here are a few small editorial comments ranging over
>different parts of the document.

Thanks.

>
>"Semantic extensions of RDF MUST conform to the semantic
>conditions for simple and RDF interpretations described
>in Sections 1 and 3.1"
>
>However, Section 3.1 is about RDF entailment.
>RDF interpretations are considered in the rather
>large space between the start of Sections 3 and 3.1.
>In order to make this reference correct, this
>text could be made into a new section 3.1.

Hmm, point taken.  Done. I have taken the opportunity of 
rationalizing the substructure of the other sections also.

>
>===
>
>Section 5
>"Exactly how these sets and mapping are defined is ..."
>Add s to mapping.

Done

>===
>
>Just before Section 5.1 it is stated that
>"so that ... would violate the general monotonicity lemma"
>however this lemma is only treated (not much) later.
>Perhaps this could be made somewhat more reader-friendly?

Ive added an explicit reference "described in section 6, below." Both 
the lemma name and the section are hyperlinked to the relevant text, 
also.

>
>===
>
>The two tables in the proof appendix that define the
>rdf(s) Herbrand interpretations, mention four times
>"contains a triple ..."
>In each case, the triple is determined uniquely.
>So it would be clearer to replace this by:
>"contains the triple ..."
>

OK, as you prefer. Done.

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 17:52:48 UTC