From cfee2ae3bf7198ed4b2b796670a4d1aabc513c74 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 13:23:54 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] move rdf1.1 change note boxes to change section in appendix --- spec/index.html | 124 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) diff --git a/spec/index.html b/spec/index.html index a09ae7f..bb38eb8 100644 --- a/spec/index.html +++ b/spec/index.html @@ -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; @@ -120,7 +101,6 @@

Notes

-

Notes in this style indicate changes from the 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics.

Notes in this style are technical asides on obscure or recondite matters.

Introduction

@@ -427,21 +407,6 @@

Simple Interpretations

-
-

The 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics defined simple interpretations relative to a vocabulary.

-

In the 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics, IL was a total, rather than partial, mapping.

-

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 string datatype, - and introduces the special type - rdf:langString - for language-tagged strings. - The full semantics for typed literals is given in section [[[#datatypes]]]. -

-
-

Simple interpretations are required to interpret all names, and are therefore infinite. This simplifies the exposition. @@ -741,31 +706,11 @@

Skolemization (Informative)

Literals and datatypes

-

In the 2004 RDF 1.0 specification, - datatype D-entailment was defined as a semantic extension 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".

-

Datatypes are identified 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 recognized datatype IRIs.

-

The previous version of this specification defined the parameter D - as a datatype map 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 datatype map. - Formally, the datatype map corresponding to the set D is the - restriction of a D-interpretation to the set D. - Semantic extensions which are stated in terms of conditions on datatype maps - can be interpreted as applying to this mapping.

-

The exact mechanism by which an IRI identifies a datatype is considered to be external to the semantics, but the semantics presumes that a recognized IRI identifies a unique datatype wherever it occurs. @@ -897,10 +842,6 @@

D-interpretations

the Char production in [[XML11]]. Such strings cannot be written in an XML-compatible surface syntax.

-

In the 2004 RDF 1.0 specification, - ill-typed literals were required to denote a value in IR, - and D-unsatisfiability could be recognized only by using the RDFS semantics.

-
@@ -1353,9 +1294,6 @@

RDFS Interpretations

-

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.

-

Since I is an RDF interpretation, the first condition implies that IP = ICEXT(I(rdf:Property)).

@@ -2263,6 +2201,65 @@

Acknowledgments

+
+

Substantive Changes

+ +
+

Substantive changes between RDF 1.0 and RDF 1.1

+ +
    + The RDF 1.0 semantics defined simple interpretations relative to a vocabulary. +
+ +
    + In the RDF 1.0 semantics, IL was a total, rather than partial, mapping. +
+ +
    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 string datatype, + and introduced the special type + rdf:langString + for language-tagged strings. + The full semantics for typed literals is given in section [[[#datatypes]]]. +
+ +
    In the RDF 1.0 specification, + datatype D-entailment was defined as a semantic extension 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". +
+ +
    RDF 1.0 specification defined the parameter D + as a datatype map 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 datatype map. + Formally, the datatype map corresponding to the set D is the + restriction of a D-interpretation to the set D. + Semantic extensions which are stated in terms of conditions on datatype maps + can be interpreted as applying to this mapping. +
+ + +
    In the RDF 1.0 specification, + ill-typed literals were required to denote a value in IR, + and D-unsatisfiability could be recognized only by using the RDFS semantics. +
+ +
    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. +
+ +
+

Substantive changes since RDF 1.1

@@ -2276,6 +2273,9 @@

Substantive changes since RDF 1.1

+
+ +