Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
move rdf1.1 change note boxes to change section in appendix
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
@pfps
pfps committed Feb 6, 2025
1 parent 53b171f commit cfee2ae
Showing 1 changed file with 62 additions and 62 deletions.
124 changes: 62 additions & 62 deletions spec/index.html
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -65,25 +65,6 @@
}


.changenote {
font-size:small;
margin: 1em 0em 0em;
padding: 1em;
border: 2px solid #cff6d9;
background: #ffddfe;
}

.changenote::before {
content: "Change Note";
display: block;
width: 150px;
margin: -1.5em 0 0.5em 0;
font-weight: bold;
border: 1px solid #cff6d9;
background: #ffddef;
padding: 3px 1em;
}


.fact {
padding: 0.5em;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -120,7 +101,6 @@
</section>

<section class='introductory'><h2 id="notes">Notes</h2>
<p class='changenote'>Notes in this style indicate changes from the 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics.</p>
<p class='technote'>Notes in this style are technical asides on obscure or recondite matters.</p></section>
<section>
<h2 id="introduction">Introduction</h2>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -427,21 +407,6 @@ <h2>Simple Interpretations</h2>
</tr>
</table>

<div class="changenote">
<p>The 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics defined simple interpretations relative to a vocabulary.</p>
<p>In the 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics, IL was a total, rather than partial, mapping.</p>
<p>The 2004 RDF 1.0 specification divided literals into 'plain' literals
with no type and optional language tags, and typed literals.
Usage has shown that it is important that every literal have a type.
RDF 1.1 replaces plain literals without language tags by literals typed with
the XML Schema <code>string</code> datatype,
and introduces the special type
<a data-cite="RDF12-CONCEPTS#dfn-language-tagged-string"><code>rdf:langString</code></a>
for language-tagged strings.
The full semantics for typed literals is given in section [[[#datatypes]]].
</p>
</div>

<p class="technote">Simple interpretations are required to interpret all <a>names</a>,
and are therefore infinite.
This simplifies the exposition.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -741,31 +706,11 @@ <h2>Skolemization (Informative)</h2>
<section id="datatypes">
<h2>Literals and datatypes</h2>

<p class="changenote">In the 2004 RDF 1.0 specification,
datatype D-entailment was defined as a <a>semantic extension</a> of RDFS-entailment.
Here it is defined as a direct extension to basic RDF.
This is more in conformity with actual usage,
where RDF with datatypes is widely used without the RDFS vocabulary.
If there is a need to distinguish this from the 2004 RDF 1.0 terminology,
the longer phrasing "simple D-entailment" or "simple datatype entailment"
should be used rather than "D-entailment".</p>

<p>Datatypes are <a>identified</a> by IRIs.
Interpretations will vary according to which IRIs are recognized as denoting datatypes.
We describe this using a parameter D on simple interpretations,
where D is the set of <dfn data-local-lt="recognized">recognize</dfn><em><strong>d</strong></em> datatype IRIs.</p>

<p class="changenote">The previous version of this specification defined the parameter D
as a <a>datatype map</a> from IRIs to datatypes,
i.e. as a restricted kind of interpretation mapping.
As the current semantics presumes that a recognized IRI identifies a unique datatype,
this IRI-to-datatype mapping is globally unique and externally specified,
so we can think of D as either a set of IRIs or as a fixed <a>datatype map</a>.
Formally, the <dfn>datatype map</dfn> corresponding to the set D is the
restriction of a <a>D-interpretation</a> to the set D.
Semantic extensions which are stated in terms of conditions on <a>datatype maps</a>
can be interpreted as applying to this mapping.</p>

<p>The exact mechanism by which an IRI <a>identifies</a> a datatype is considered to be
external to the semantics, but the semantics presumes that a recognized IRI <a>identifies</a>
a unique datatype wherever it occurs.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -897,10 +842,6 @@ <h2>D-interpretations</h2>
the <a data-cite="XML11#NT-Char"><em>Char</em> production</a> in [[XML11]].
Such strings cannot be written in an XML-compatible surface syntax.</p>

<p class="changenote">In the 2004 RDF 1.0 specification,
ill-typed literals were required to denote a value in IR,
and <a>D-unsatisfiability</a> could be recognized only by using the RDFS semantics.</p>

</section>

<section id="D_entailment">
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1353,9 +1294,6 @@ <h2>RDFS Interpretations</h2>
</tr>
</table>

<p class="changenote">In the 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics, LV was defined as part of a simple interpretation structure,
and the definition given here was a constraint. </p>

<p>Since I is an <a>RDF interpretation</a>, the first condition implies that IP
= ICEXT(I(<code>rdf:Property</code>)).</p>

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2263,6 +2201,65 @@ <h2>Acknowledgments</h2>

</section>

<section id="section-Changes" class="informative appendix">
<h2>Substantive Changes</h2>

<section id="ChangeLog-11" class="informative appendix" >
<h2>Substantive changes between RDF 1.0 and RDF 1.1 </h2>

<ul>
The RDF 1.0 semantics defined simple interpretations relative to a vocabulary.
</ul>

<ul>
In the RDF 1.0 semantics, IL was a total, rather than partial, mapping.
</ul>

<ul> The RDF 1.0 specification divided literals into 'plain' literals
with no type and optional language tags, and typed literals.
Usage has shown that it is important that every literal have a type.
RDF 1.1 replaced plain literals without language tags by literals typed with
the XML Schema <code>string</code> datatype,
and introduced the special type
<a data-cite="RDF12-CONCEPTS#dfn-language-tagged-string"><code>rdf:langString</code></a>
for language-tagged strings.
The full semantics for typed literals is given in section [[[#datatypes]]].
</ul>

<ul>In the RDF 1.0 specification,
datatype D-entailment was defined as a <a>semantic extension</a> of RDFS-entailment.
In RDF 1.1 it was defined as a direct extension to basic RDF.
This is more in conformity with actual usage,
where RDF with datatypes is widely used without the RDFS vocabulary.
If there is a need to distinguish RDF 1.1 from the RDF 1.0 terminology,
the longer phrasing "simple D-entailment" or "simple datatype entailment"
should be used rather than "D-entailment".
</ul>

<ul>RDF 1.0 specification defined the parameter D
as a <a>datatype map</a> from IRIs to datatypes,
i.e. as a restricted kind of interpretation mapping.
As RDF 1.1 presumed that a recognized IRI identifies a unique datatype,
this IRI-to-datatype mapping is globally unique and externally specified,
so we can think of D as either a set of IRIs or as a fixed <a>datatype map</a>.
Formally, the <dfn>datatype map</dfn> corresponding to the set D is the
restriction of a <a>D-interpretation</a> to the set D.
Semantic extensions which are stated in terms of conditions on <a>datatype maps</a>
can be interpreted as applying to this mapping.
</ul>


<ul>In the RDF 1.0 specification,
ill-typed literals were required to denote a value in IR,
and <a>D-unsatisfiability</a> could be recognized only by using the RDFS semantics.
</ul>

<ul>In the 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics, LV was defined as part of a simple interpretation structure,
and its definition in RDFS interpretations was a constraint.
</ul>

</section>

<section id="ChangeLog-12" class="informative appendix" >
<h2>Substantive changes since RDF 1.1</h2>

Expand All @@ -2276,6 +2273,9 @@ <h2>Substantive changes since RDF 1.1</h2>
</ul>
</section>

</section>


<section id="index"></section>

</body></html>

0 comments on commit cfee2ae

Please sign in to comment.