- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: 28 Jul 2003 17:37:07 +0100
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1059410226.2139.145.camel@dhcp-91-3.hpl.hp.com>
On Mon, 2003年07月28日 at 16:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > Unfortunately, this document still has problems with the RDF and RDFS > entailment rules. The problems are less critical because the status of the > RDFS entailment rules have been further downgraded. > > Currently the document states ``This terminology is agnostic as to whether > XML data is considered to be identical to a character string'' (Section > 3). It also states that ``The document also describes complete sets of > inference rules corresponding to the semantics de[s]cribed in the text'' > (Section 0.1). > > These two statements are mutually inconsistent. Because of the rigid > nature of untyped literals and XML literals in rdf-interpretations, a > complete set of inference rules for rdf-interpretations will of necessity > determine whether an RDF XML literal is a string or not. Oops - sorry Peter, I should have updated the ED's draft. Now done: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/ The text concerning the denotation of XML literals has been modified and I believe should address your concern. Are we done on this one? Brian
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 12:48:03 UTC