Re: RDF Semantics: a partial review

>  >>...
>>>>>    >>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
>>>>>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)".

Oh, I see your point: I thought you were indicating that it was 
harmful rather than redundant.

OK, now removed.


>  >

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

Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 17:52:55 UTC