Re: RDF Semantics: rdfs entailment lemma

>  ><snip>
>>>   >
>>>>I have rewritten the text along these lines but without altering the
>>>>actual table (except as noted below). I hope this is now sufficiently
>>>The text now includes all literals in IR (= the domain of sur).
>>>It seems that the well-formed XML literals themselves should not
>>>be in; only their values are.
>>>Note, for example, that sur is not defined for them.
>>This is in fact harmless since these elements of IR are never denoted
>>in this model; but now corrected in any case.
>The correction in the table is clear.
>There is now some confusion with the sentence before the table
>where the definition is also given.
>The text would become clearer when something as I put here between
>brackets [] would be inserted, just like you do in the table:
>"First, the domain of sur is the set containing just the URI references,
>literals [other than well-formed XML literals,] and blank nodes occurring
>in D.  (This is the universe of the rdfs-Herbrand interpretation,
>defined below.)"
>As I tried to explain earlier, for me this takes away the cycle in the
>text, and thereby greatly facilitates understanding.

Thanks for the comment, but at this very late stage in the process I 
do not feel that it is sufficiently serious as to require a change in 
the text.

>I found a typo:
>Section 7.1, first sentence: chracterized

Thanks. I will ask the people in charge of the process to see if they 
are able to make this correction.

If you were able to formally indicate that we have now addressed your 
comment to your satisfaction, so that we can close this comment 
thread, that would be most helpful.



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, 14 November 2003 11:07:31 UTC