W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2012

Re: additional issue-57 use case: polysemy

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:23:06 +0100
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bpq9d20et.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
ht writes:

> One probably tangential query: [1] says
>
>   "The extension graph, if provided, must be true under the semantic
>    conditions of the extension."
>
> This seems an odd constraint, if I read it correctly.  By construction
> the reserved IRIs of an extension will all be _mentioned_ in its
> extension graph.  But it seems unlikely that they will be _used_ in it
> in most cases.

OK, so now I've gotten to the example [2], and it indeed _uses_ what
is clearly _intended_ to be the only IRI in the extension indicated by
ex:TimeDependentProperty.  But the example extension graph, notated

  { ex:TimeDependentProperty a rdfs:Class }

in fact uses _three_ IRIs, namely "ex:TimeDependentProperty",
"rdf:type" and "rdfs:Class", right?  So how do I know which of these
is actually _in_ the extension?  I.e. for which ones does their use in
a graph which inherits ex:TimeDependentProperty require appealing to
the constraints defined in that extension?

ht

[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/AnotherSpin#examples
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 16:23:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:16 UTC