[Bill de hÓra]
If axiom 1 was the case:
1: RDF would not need a Model Theory. We'd have no requirement for
assigning interpretations to URI vocabularies. But, oddly enough that is
not the case; we do have the requirement for a denotational semantics
for RDF and a number of people have spent a lot time on it.
[Tom P]
Yes, but the interpretations apply to sets of RDF triples, not to the URIs
used to identify RDF resources.
[Bill]
2: we could throw away 2a as redundant. Note: RDF MT requires this
one.
The axioms are desirable, but not observable. And perhaps 2a is not
desirable; this would suggest the languages of the semantic web can't
evolve and will continually need to be replaced.
[Tom P]
This depends on what "sameness" means, of course - is that an NP-hard
question?
Cheers,
Tom P
