- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:49:47 -0500 (EST)
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Herman ter Horst just brought to my attention a significant change to the RDFS semantics in the editor's version of the RDF semantics document. This change involves adding new constructs to the definition of RDFS interpretations as follows: An rdfs-interpretation of V is an rdf-interpretation I of (V union rdfV union rdfsV) *with a distinguished subset IC of the universe and a mapping ICEXT from IC to the set of subsets of IR*, which satisfies the following semantic conditions and all the triples in the subsequent table, called the RDFS axiomatic triples. [Emphasis added] Previously RDFS interpretations used the same structure as RDF interpretations, and IC and ICEXT were conveniences only. To track this change will require significant changes to S&AS. I do not feel that OWL can go to last call without some resolution of this new issue. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent Technologies PS: If I had my druthers, I would change RDFS interpretations back to being just like RDF interpretations as they were in the Last Call version of the RDF semantics. If a clarification is needed I would proceed somewhat along the lines of defining rdfs-interpretations as An rdfs-interpretation of V is an rdf-interpretation I of (V union rdfV union rdfsV) which satisfies the following semantic conditions and all the triples in the subsequent table, called the RDFS axiomatic triples. For convenience, and to make the semantic conditions easier to understand, ICEXT is defined as ICEXT(x) = { y | <y,x> is in IEXT(I(rdf:type)) } and IC is defined as IC = { y | <y,I(rdfs:Class)> is in IEXT(I(rdf:type)) } which is the same as saying IC = ICEXT(I(rdfs:Class)) and then removing the second semantic condition. I would also remove the discussion of IC and ICEXT before the definition of an rdfs-interpretation, but not the discussion of a class, although minor changes would need to be made there. PPS: Someone in the RDF Core WG may want to forward this message to the WG.
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 09:49:57 UTC