W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: minimizing the textual changes to RDF semantics

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:41:42 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f0dbc2b6706d153@[]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: connolly@w3.org, herman.ter.horst@philips.com, jjc@hpl.hp.com, hendler@cs.umd.edu, schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl, sandro@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com

>From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
>Subject: minimizing the textual changes to RDF semantics
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:08:26 -0600
>>  In order to bring down the temperature, allow me to modify my
>>  suggested changes to the PR document. The result should be exactly
>>  similar to the semantics described in 2004a, but with less change to
>>  the actual PR text, and is visible at
>>  http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004b.html
>>  see especially
>>  http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004b.html#defDinterp
>>  Just to clarify: my current proposal is a minimal revision of the
>>  wording and style of presentation of section 5.1, in partial response
>>  to criticisms from Herman, but does not change the actual semantics,
>>  in response to observations by Peter.  I have tried to make the
>>  textual changes minimal in order to avoid as much controversy as
>>  possible at this stage.
>Well, I believe that the semantics ARE changed by these changes.  In
>particular, the vocabulary of a D-interpretation would be required to
>include the URIs of all datatype names in D.

Not quite. That is, the definition says that a D-interpretation of V 
is an rdfs-interpretation of (V union {aaa: <aaa,x> in D}.  But it 
does not require that these aaa's are in V itself.

>  Similarly the dropping of the
>requirement that the value space of a datatype be a subset of LV is a
>change to the semantics

Well, forget that one, since that is rendered impossible by the RDFS 
conditions on rdfs:Datatype, and Im certainly not going to propose 
changing those (even though in some grand sense it would in fact have 
been a good idea, its not a good idea at this stage.)

>.  Whether these changes are a good idea or even
>whether they change any D-entailments is a separate issue.

I think at this stage the changes are only cosmetic and can be 
considered to be editorial rather than substantive.


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, 14 January 2004 16:41:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:04 UTC