Re: RDF Semantics: two issues, connected to OWL

>Could it be that the PR version of RDF Semantics is not the
>proper version?

Well, it is the version intended. Whether it is 'proper' in some 
broader sense remains to be seen, of course.

>It seems that some changes that you describe below are not
>in the document.  See below.

Apart from one mistake, noted below, I believe all the requested 
changes have been made or responded to.

>(I could not check this with an earlier version of the
>document; the editorial version was not updated when you wrote
>your last mail, and there was no pointer to new document text
>in your last mail.)

Yes. I am sorry that we were unable to circulate this in advance. We 
were at the time in the very throes of the publication process, and 
it was impossible to delay it sufficiently to review the changes.

>>>>>Issue 1- It seems that two changes made to RDF Semantics
>>>>>during LC2 have not yet been incorporated completely
>>>>>in the definition of D-interpretations.
>>>>As already remarked in earlier messages: that I regard as a typo, and
>>>>plan to get it changed before final publication , if the process will
>>>>allow it.
>>>Without going into the meaning of the word typo, I would only like
>>>to note for clarity that I added two changes in my previous message,
>>>to the change about which you remarked in [5] that you regard it as a

Yes, I know you did. I thought I had made it clear in my response 
that I did not accept the 'large' change you suggested there (your 
'issue 2' in [1].)  That is why that change has not been made.

>  >
>>If I regard it as a typo, then I can consider the change to be editorial
>>I have made those changes to the final version of the document,
>Unlike the last statement suggests, I cannot find the "two changes"
>that I mentioned above, from [1], in the document dated 15 December.

I was referring only to the changes referred to in your 'issue 1' in 
[1].  Insofar as I had understood the import of your messages on this 
topic, I had made changes in response to them.

>These two changes were left over as part of changes from LC2 that
>were not yet complete:
>1) the omission of the terminology "from V" as opposed to "in V"

?? That terminology is not used in the document, I believe, except in 
a context of normal English usage of the word "from". No special 
technical meaning is given to the phrase, in any case.

>2) the change not to require all possible literal values in LV
>- these changes are not yet incorporated in the definition of
>For example, line 1 of the definition would need change as follows:
>--if <aaa,x> is in D then [aaa in V and] I(aaa)=x

No, aaa here is the datatype name, not a literal.  The only change 
that was required was made, in line 3 of the definition, the 
inclusion of 'in V'; as indeed you suggested in your original 
comment, as I recall.

>However, instead of making such local changes to the definition,
>I suggested to implement these changes by editorially rewording
>the definition of D-interpretations so that it is more obvious
>that the XMLLiteral conditions, from Section 3 (i.e. two RDF
>semantic conditions) and Section 4 (i.e. two RDFS axiomatic triples),
>form a special case.
>As I pointed out in [1], this would enable a generalization of the
>RDFS entailment lemma to include datatypes.  Even though such a
>lemma is not in the RDF Semantics document, it could become useful.
>I included a suggestion for such a rewording in [1]:
>HtH>Given a datatype map D and a vocabulary V, a D-interpretation
>>of V is an rdfs-interpretation of V such that for all
>><a,d> in D we have:
>>- a in V and I(a) = d
>>- I satisfies the triples
>>     a type Datatype
>>     a subClassOf Literal
>>- if l=s^^a is a typed literal in V and s in L(d),
>>   then IL(l)=L2V(d)(s) in LV  and  <IL(l),d> in IEXT(I(type))
>>- if l=s^^a is a typed literal in V and s not in L(d),
>>   then IL(l) not in LV  and  <IL(l),d> not in IEXT(I(type)

Yes, and I thank you for the suggestion. We did not use it because we 
were trying to keep changes to the document, even textual changes, to 
a minimum.

>>well as inserting the required 'extra' rule (christened rule gl and
>>defined immediately after rule lg in the document, with a short
>>explanation) and other small modifications as required in the rdfs
>>entailment lemma proof.
>it seems that the editorial work is not yet entirely complete, as
>the two statements of the RDFS entailment lemma differ.
>The appendix version does not yet include gl in its statement.

Whoops, that is indeed an editorial slip, mia culpa. At this point it 
will have to be registered as an error, and corrected later.



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 Thursday, 18 December 2003 14:09:02 UTC