Re: Comment on RDF Model Theory

Oh, one other thing, the errata page says near the top:
"approved fixes"

Given that (to my knowledge) no one is currently chartered to approve 
any fixes, this could lead to the state where no errata are possible.
Or perhaps, in the absence of a WG, it's part of your job to approve 
fixes (this part of the process is not clear to me), in which case the 
page in its current state is accurate.

I thought DanBri's comment
This is a draft errata note, for review. ----danbri
was appropriate and helpful, and a similar comment would more accurately 
reflect the status of the latest erratum.

Jeremy

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Thanks Jeremy. I have added the error to:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata.html
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> We suggest that the following text is in error:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#DTYPEINTERP
>> [[
>> If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is any
>> rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa: < aaa, x > in D for some x }
>> which satisfies the following extra conditions for every pair < aaa, x >
>> in D:
>> ]]
>>
>> we suggest that this text is better:
>> [[
>> If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is any
>> rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa: < aaa, x > in D for some x }
>> union { "sss"^^aaa : < aaa, x > in D for some x and "sss" in the lexical
>> space of x }
>> which satisfies the following extra conditions for every pair < aaa, x >
>> in D:
>> ]]
>>
>> This is motivated so that the D-entailments recorded in RDF Test Cases
>> do in fact hold.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/#tc_cert
>> e.g.
>> tests
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-within-type-1
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#semantic-equivalence-within-type-2
>>
>>
>> involving files
>> datatypes/test003a.nt
>> and
>> datatypes/test003b.nt
>>
>> With the currently worded RDF Semantics these entailments do not hold.
>>
>> Given that the spec is no longer in active development, we would be
>> happy with a note in the erratum document to this effect, for formal
>> consideration when this specification is next reviewed by a working group.
>>
>> Jeremy Carroll
>> David Turner
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:43:46 UTC