diff --git a/spec/semantics.html b/spec/semantics.html index 142ef97..68dd226 100644 --- a/spec/semantics.html +++ b/spec/semantics.html @@ -306,8 +306,8 @@
Note that the definition makes a difference between graphs and graph terms. A graph term is a direct constituent of the graph ("containing graph") in which it occurs as a triple component. However, the direct constituents of the graph term's graph, and their direct constituents (and so on), are not direct constituents of the containing graph. Rather, they are constituents of the containing graph. - This difference is crucial for the definitions below: a graph is not the same as a graph term.
+ This difference between graph and graph term is crucial for the definitions below.With that definition, we now introduce free variables: these are variables which occur directly or nested in the graph but which are not covered by a quantification set.
- The set of free variables ($FV$) of a term or a set of triples is defined as follows: +The set of free variables ($FV$) of a term or a set of triples is defined as follows:
Consider a graph $G=(U,E,F)$ and a variable $v\in V\cap C(G)$:
+
We denote the set of variables which are free in $G$ as $FV(G)$.
Examples:
This enables us to introduce the notion of closed graphs and ground terms.
We denote the set of ground terms as $T_G$. -
A triple is ground if all of its direct constituents are ground.
+A triple is ground if its subject, predicate, and object are all ground.
A graph $G=(U,E,F)$ is ground if $E=U=\emptyset$ and all triples in $F$ are ground.
@@ -454,7 +453,7 @@An abstract graph $G=(U,E,F)$ can also contain quantified variables $v\in U\cup E$ which do not occur in any triple of $F$. +
An abstract graph $G=(U,E,F)$ can also contain quantified variables $v\in U\cup E$ which do not occur free in any triple of $F$. These variables do not contribute to the interpretation of the graph. In order to simplify our considerations for the following sections, we introduce the notion of normalised graphs:
@@ -496,10 +495,11 @@-With combinations of mappings we can define isomorphisms between abstract N3 graphs:
+With combinations of mappings we can define isomorphisms between abstract N3 graphs:- Let $M$ be a bijection between the variables of $V$, we define:
+ Let $M$ be a bijection between two sets of variables (subsets of $V$), + we define:- We call a graph $G_1$ isomorphic to a graph $G_2$, written as $G_1\simeq G_2$, if + We call a graph $G_1$ isomorphic to a graph $G_2$, written as $G_1\simeq G_2$, if there exists some $M$ such that $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_2$ under $M$.
@@ -566,7 +566,7 @@If $G_1$ is isomorphic to $G_2$ then $G_2$ is also isomorphic to $G_1$.
+In appendix , we prove that the isomorphism relation is reflexive ($G_1 \simeq G_1$), symmetric ($G_1 \simeq G_2 \leftrightarrow G_2 \simeq G_1$) and transitive ($G_1 \simeq G_2 \wedge G_2 \simeq G_3 \rightarrow G_1 \simeq G_3$).
@@ -622,12 +622,12 @@
Note that the images of $Q_I$ are syntactic elements (graph terms), but they can (and most likely will) also be elements of the domain $Δ_I$. - Note however that not all interpretations are required to have graph terms in their domain, because $Q_I$ is allowed to be the empty mapping. +
Note that the images of $\Gamma_I$ are syntactic elements (graph terms), but they can (and most likely will) also be elements of the domain $Δ_I$. + Note however that not all interpretations are required to have graph terms in their domain, because $\Gamma_I$ is allowed to be the empty mapping. Such interpretations could still satisfy a graph that has no graph term constituent.
@@ -653,8 +653,8 @@{_:x :p :o}, {_:y :p :o}
and {_:x :p :o. _:y :p :o}, we thus get:
@@ -683,7 +683,7 @@
- Note that the interpretation function $Q_I(x)$ maps ground graphs into the domain of discourse without interpreting their content separately. + Note that the interpretation function $\Gamma_I(x)$ maps ground graphs into the domain of discourse without interpreting their content separately. This choice was made to guarentee referential opacity (see also referential opacity in RDF-star ). To illustrate this idea consider the superman example expressed in N3: @@ -741,18 +741,18 @@
({}, {}, {(:bob, :says, < {}, {}, {(:bob, :is, :wise)}.>)})$)$(:bob, :says, < {}, {}, {(:bob, :is, :wise)}.>)$)$If we revert back to our original example with variables, a regular valuation function (such as the mapping A used for blank nodes in [[RDF11-MT]]) will simply replace both occurrences of variable $x$ with a domain element $\delta_i$ from $\Delta_I$. - In that case, $Q_I$ will have to map the graph term $<\{\}, \{\}, \{(\delta_i, \text{:is}, \text{:wise})\}>$ + In that case, $\Gamma_I$ will have to map the graph term $<\{\}, \{\}, \{(\delta_i, \text{:is}, \text{:wise})\}>$ to an isomorphic copy. However, the isomorphism is only defined for concrete N3 terms, and not domain elements. - If not applying the valuation function to the graph term, $Q_I$ will have to map the graph term $<\{\}, \{\}, \{(x, \text{:is}, \text{:wise})\}>$, + If not applying the valuation function to the graph term, $\Gamma_I$ will have to map the graph term $<\{\}, \{\}, \{(x, \text{:is}, \text{:wise})\}>$, which is however no longer ground as its graph is no longer closed - ($x$ is quantified outside of the graph). In our basic interpretation, the mapping $Q_I$ is only defined for ground graph terms. + ($x$ is quantified outside of the graph). In our basic interpretation, the mapping $\Gamma_I$ is only defined for ground graph terms. We thus need to first ground these kinds of leaked variables, i.e., variables that become free when considering the graph term in isolation (as is required when determining isomorphisms).
@@ -767,7 +767,7 @@