- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:27:18 -0600
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>This is a new comment - I am sorry that I >didn't see this before the LC2 deadline. > >D-interpretations are defined of RDF graphs and not >for vocabularies. >This seems to contradict the great stress in the document >on uniformity of the various definitions of entailment. >I vaguely remember that in an early version of the text >there was a reason to define D-interpretations for graphs >and not for vocabularies. >However, the current definition uses only the properties >of an rdfs-interpretation and nothing about the graph G. >So it seems that this can easily be changed to become >consistent and uniform with the remainder of the document. >My proposal is to define D-interpretations of vocabularies >instead of graphs. > >A motivation for making this change is that the OWL >Semantics document explicitly makes use of the definition >of D-interpretations, for vocabularies and not for graphs. Indeed. This was, as you surmise, left over from a time when an assertion in the graph of the form aaa rdf:type rdfs:datatpe . was being considered to be a 'declaration' of aaa as a datatype. This has for some time been absorbed into the general semantic machinery, however, so that the change in definition is no longer required. I will correct this, thanks for noticing it. Pat > >Herman ter Horst -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wednesday, 12 November 2003 10:27:21 UTC