Re: RDF Semantics: rdfs entailment lemma

I forgot to respond to this one.

>>  ><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 
>>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.

An issue with the presentation of the proof of the rdfs entailment lemma 
in the RDF Semantics document is indeed relatively unimportant in 
comparison to the main point of the thread, the correctness of this 
Therefore, I concluded with [1].


Herman ter Horst


Received on Monday, 17 November 2003 03:18:05 UTC