--- a/rdf-mt/index.html	Wed Jun 26 16:11:04 2013 +0100
+++ b/rdf-mt/index.html	Wed Jun 26 10:07:12 2013 -0700
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@
 <section id="conformance"><p>This specification, <em>RDF 1.1 Semantics</em>, is normative for RDF semantics and the validity of RDF inference processes. It is not normative for many aspects of RDF meaning which are not described or specified by this semantics, including social issues of how IRIs are assigned meanings in use and how the referents of IRIs are related to Web content expressed in other media such as natural language texts. </p></section>
     
  <section>
-      <h2 id="extensions">Semantic extensions and entailment regimes</h2>
+      <h2 id="extensions">Semantic Extensions and Entailment Regimes</h2>
       <p>RDF is intended for use as a base notation for a variety of extended notations such as OWL [[OWL2-OVERVIEW]] and RIF [[RIF-OVERVIEW]], whose expressions can be encoded as RDF graphs which use a particular vocabulary with a specially defined meaning. Also, particular IRI vocabularies may be given meanings by other specifications or conventions. When such extra meanings are assumed, a given RDF graph may support more extensive entailments than are sanctioned by the basic RDF semantics. In general, the more assumptions that are made about the meanings of IRIs in an RDF graph, the more entailments follow from those assumptions. </p>
 
 <p>A particular such set of semantic assumptions is called a <dfn>semantic extension</dfn>. Each <a>semantic extension</a> defines an <dfn>entailment regime</dfn> of entailments which are valid under that extension. RDFS, described later in this document, is one such <a>semantic extension</a>. We will refer to an entailment regime by names such as <em> RDFS entailment</em>, <em>D-entailment</em>, etc. </p>
@@ -182,12 +182,13 @@
     </section>
 
  <section>
-      <h2 id="notation">Notation and terminology</h2>
+      <h2 id="notation">Notation and Terminology</h2>
 
 
-      <p>This document uses the following terminology for describing RDF graph syntax, all as defined in the companion RDF Concepts specification [[!RDF11-CONCEPTS]]: <em><a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-iri">IRI</a></em>, <em><a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-triples">RDF triple</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-rdf-graph">RDF graph</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-triples">subject</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-triples" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-triples">predicate</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-triples">object</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-rdf-source">RDF source</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-node">node</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-blank-node">blank node</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-literal">literal</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#graph-isomorphism">isomorphic</a>.</em></p>
+      <p>This document uses the following terminology for describing RDF graph syntax, all as defined in the companion RDF Concepts specification [[!RDF11-CONCEPTS]]: <em><a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-iri">IRI</a></em>, <em><a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-triples">RDF triple</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-rdf-graph">RDF graph</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-triples">subject</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-triples" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-triples">predicate</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-triples">object</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-rdf-source">RDF source</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-node">node</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-blank-node">blank node</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-literal">literal</a>, <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#graph-isomorphism">isomorphic</a>, and <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-dataset">RDF datasets</a>.</em> All the definitions in this document apply unchanged to <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-generalized-rdf">generalized RDF triples, graphs, and datasets</a>. </p>
 
-<p>The words <dfn>denotes</dfn> and <dfn>refers to</dfn> are used interchangeably as synonyms for the relationship between an IRI or literal and what it refers to in a given interpretation, itself called the <dfn>referent</dfn> or <dfn>denotation</dfn>. IRI meanings may also be determined by other constraints external to the RDF semantics; when we wish to refer to such an externally defined naming relationship, we will use the word <dfn>identify</dfn> and its cognates. For example, the fact that the IRI <code>http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal</code> is widely used as the name of a datatype described in the XML Schema document [[XMLSCHEMA11-2]] might be described by saying that the IRI <em>identifies</em> that datatype. If an IRI identifies something it may or may not refer to it in a given interpretation, depending on how the semantics is specified. For example, an IRI used as a graph name <a>identify</a>ing a named graph in an <a class="external">RDF dataset</a> may refer to something different from the graph it identifies. </p>
+
+<p>The words <dfn>denotes</dfn> and <dfn>refers to</dfn> are used interchangeably as synonyms for the relationship between an IRI or literal and what it refers to in a given interpretation, itself called the <dfn>referent</dfn> or <dfn>denotation</dfn>. IRI meanings may also be determined by other constraints external to the RDF semantics; when we wish to refer to such an externally defined naming relationship, we will use the word <dfn>identify</dfn> and its cognates. For example, the fact that the IRI <code>http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal</code> is widely used as the name of a datatype described in the XML Schema document [[XMLSCHEMA11-2]] might be described by saying that the IRI <em>identifies</em> that datatype. If an IRI identifies something it may or may not refer to it in a given interpretation, depending on how the semantics is specified. For example, an IRI used as a graph name <a>identify</a>ing a named graph in an <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-dataset" class="external">RDF dataset</a> may refer to something different from the graph it identifies. </p>
 
 <p>Throughout this document, the equality sign = indicates strict identity. The statement "A = B" means that there is one entity to which both expressions "A" and "B" refer.  Angle brackets &lt; x, y &gt; are used to indicate an ordered pair 
   of x and y.</p>
@@ -368,7 +369,7 @@
 <p><a>Semantic extension</a>s may impose further constraints upon interpretation mappings by requiring some IRIs to refer in particular ways. For example, D-interpretations, described below, require some IRIs, understood as <a>identify</a>ing and referring to datatypes, to have a fixed interpretation. </p>
 
 <section>
-  <h3 id="blank_nodes">Blank Nodes</h3>
+  <h3 id="blank_nodes">Blank nodes</h3>
 
     
 <p>Blank nodes are treated as simply indicating the existence of a thing, without using an IRI to <a>identify</a> any particular thing. This is not the same as assuming that the blank node indicates an 'unknown' IRI. 
@@ -394,7 +395,7 @@
 a denotation by an interpretation, reflecting the intuition that
 they have no 'global' meaning. </p>
 
-<section><h3>Shared blank nodes</h3>
+<section class="informative"><h3>Shared blank nodes (Informative)</h3>
 
 <p> The semantics for blank nodes are stated in terms of the truth of a graph. However, when two (or more) graphs share a blank node, their meaning is not fully captured by treating them in isolation. For example, consider the overlapping graphs</p>
 <p><img src="RDF11SemanticsDiagrams/example5.jpg"></p>
@@ -433,9 +434,9 @@
 
 </section>
 
-<section>
+<section class="informative">
 
-<h3>Properties of simple entailment. </h3>    
+<h3>Properties of simple entailment (Informative) </h3>    
 <p>The properties described here apply only to simple entailment, not to extended notions of entailment introduced in later sections. Proofs are given in Appendix C. </p>
 
 <p class="fact">Every graph is satisfiable.</p>
@@ -487,7 +488,7 @@
 </section>
 </section>
 
-<section><h2 id="skolemization">Skolemization</h2>
+<section class="informative"><h2 id="skolemization">Skolemization (Informative)</h2>
 <p><a class="externaldefinition">Skolemization</a> is a transformation on RDF graphs which eliminates blank nodes by replacing them with "new" IRIs, which means IRIs which are coined for this purpose and are therefore guaranteed to not occur in any other RDF graph (at the time of creation). See <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization">Section 3.5</a> of [[!RDF11-CONCEPTS]] for a fuller discussion. </p> 
 <p> Suppose G is a graph containing blank nodes and sk is a skolemization mapping from the blank nodes in G to the skolem IRIs which are substituted for them, so that sk(G) is a skolemization of G.  Then the semantic relationship between them can be summarized as follows. </p>
 
@@ -560,7 +561,7 @@
 
 
 
-<section> <h4>Patterns of datatype entailment</h4>
+<section class="informative"> <h4>Patterns of datatype entailment (Informative)</h4>
 <p>Unlike <a title="simply entails">simple entailment</a>, it is not possible to give a single syntactic criterion to detect all D-entailments, which 
 can hold because of particular properties of the lexical-to-value mappings of the  <a>recognize</a>d datatypes. For example, if D contains <code>xsd:decimal</code> then </p>
 
@@ -640,7 +641,7 @@
 <p>The properties of <a>simple entailment</a> described earlier do not all apply to <a>RDF entail</a>ment. For example, all the RDF axioms are true in every <a>RDF interpretation</a>, and so are <a>RDF entail</a>ed by the empty graph, contradicting <a>interpolation</a> for RDF entailment. </p>
 
 
-<section><h4>Patterns of RDF entailment</h4>
+<section class="informative"><h4>Patterns of RDF entailment (Informative)</h4>
 <p> The last semantic condition in the above table gives the following entailment pattern for <a>recognize</a>d datatype IRIs: </p> 
 
 <div class="tabletitle">RDF entailment pattern.</div> 
@@ -936,8 +937,8 @@
 </table>
 
 <p>RDFS does not partition the universe into disjoint categories of classes, properties and individuals. Anything in the universe can be used as a class or as a property, or both, while retaining its status as an individual which may be in classes and have properties. Thus, RDFS permits classes which contain other classes, classes of properties, properties of classes, etc. As the axiomatic triples above illustrate, it also permits classes which contain themselves and properties which apply to themselves. A property of a class is not necessarily a property of its members, nor vice versa. </p>
-<section>
-<h4>A note on rdfs:Literal</h3>
+<section class="informative">
+<h4>A note on rdfs:Literal (Informative)</h3>
 <p>The class <code>rdfs:Literal</code> is not the class of literals, but rather that of literal values, which may also be referred to by IRIs. For example, LV does not contain the literal <code>"foodle"^^xsd:string</code> but it does contain the string "foodle".</p>
 
   <p>A triple of the form</p>
@@ -950,7 +951,7 @@
 </section>
 <section>
 
-<h3 id="rdfs_entailment">RDFS Entailment</h3>
+<h3 id="rdfs_entailment">RDFS entailment</h3>
 <p>S <dfn>RDFS entails</dfn> E <strong>recognizing D</strong> when every <a>RDFS interpretation</a> recognizing D
   which satisfies S also satisfies E.</p>
 <p> Since every <a>RDFS interpretation</a> is an <a>RDF interpretation</a>, if S <a>RDFS entails</a> 
@@ -960,7 +961,7 @@
 <p> aaa <code>rdf:type rdfs:Resource .</code></p>
 <p>where aaa is an IRI, are true in all RDFS interpretations.</p>
 
-<section> <h4 id="rdfs_patterns">Patterns of RDFS entailment.</h4>
+<section class="informative"> <h4 id="rdfs_patterns">Patterns of RDFS entailment (Informative)</h4>
 
 <P>RDFS entailment holds for all the following patterns, which correspond closely to the RDFS semantic conditions:</p>
 
@@ -1062,20 +1063,23 @@
 </section>
 </section>
 <section><h2>RDF Datasets</h2>
-<p class="issue">This section needs editing and probably some explanatory prose added. Exactly what depends upon the outcome of current email discussions.</p>
-<p>An RDF <a class="externalDFN">dataset</a> (see [[!RDF11-CONCEPTS]]) is a finite set of RDF graphs each paired with an IRI or blank node called the <strong>graph name</strong>, plus a <strong>default graph</strong>, without a name. Graphs in a single dataset may share blank nodes. The association of graph name IRIs with graphs is used by SPARQL [[RDF-SPARQL-QUERY]] to allow queries to be directed against particular graphs.</p>
+
+<p>An RDF <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-dataset" class="externalDFN">dataset</a> (see [[!RDF11-CONCEPTS]]) is a finite set of RDF graphs each paired with an IRI or blank node called the <strong>graph name</strong>, plus a <strong>default graph</strong>, without a name. Graphs in a single dataset may share blank nodes. The association of graph name IRIs with graphs is used by SPARQL [[RDF-SPARQL-QUERY]] to allow queries to be directed against particular graphs.</p>
 
 <p>Graph names in a dataset may refer to something other than the graph they are paired with. This allows IRI referring to other kinds of entities, such as persons, to be used in a dataset to <a>identify</a> graphs of information relevant to the entity <a>denote</a>d by the graph name IRI.</p>
 
 <p>When a graph name is used inside RDF triples in a dataset it may or may not refer to the graph it names. The semantics does not require, nor should RDF engines presume, without some external reason to do so, that graph names used in RDF triples refer to the graph they name.</p>
 
-<p>If a dataset is published as an assertion then it MUST be interpreted to be an assertion of its default graph. Semantic extensions MAY impose extra conditions which require other named graphs in the dataset to be interpreted in particular ways. </p>
+<p>All the versions of interpretation and entailment in this document are extended to treat an RDF dataset the same as its default graph.</p>
+
+<p>Other <a>semantic extension</a>s and <a>entailment regime</a>s MAY place further semantic conditions and restrictions on RDF datasets, just as with RDF graphs.  One such extension, for example, could set up a modal-like interpretation structure so that entailment between datasets would require RDF graph entailments between the graphs with the same name (adding in empty graphs as required).</p>
+
 
 </section>
 
 <h2>Appendices</h2>
 
-<section class="appendix" class="informative"><h3  id="entailment_rules">Entailment rules (Informative)</h3>
+<section class="appendix" class="informative"><h2  id="entailment_rules">Entailment rules (Informative)</h2>
 
 <p>(<em>This section is based on work described more fully in </em>[[HORST04]]<em>, </em>[[HORST05]]<em>, which should be consulted for technical details and proofs.</em>) </p>
 <p> The RDF and RDFS entailment patterns listed in the above tables can be viewed as left-to-right rules which add the entailed conclusion to a graph. These rule sets can be used to check RDF (or RDFS) entailment between graphs S and E, by the following sequence of operations:</p>
@@ -1119,7 +1123,9 @@
   </tbody>
 </table>
 <p> Both of these can be handled by allowing the rules to apply to a generalization of the RDF syntax in which literals may occur in subject position and blank nodes may occur in predicate position. </p>
-<p>Define a <dfn>generalized RDF triple</dfn> to be a triple &lt;x, y, z&gt; where x and z can be an IRI, a blank node or a literal, and y can be an IRI or a blank node; and extend this to the rest of RDF, so that a generalized RDF graph is a set of generalized RDF triples. (This extends the generalization used in [[HORST04]] and follows exactly the terms used in [[OWL2-PROFILES]].) The semantics described in this document applies to the generalized syntax without change, so that the notions of interpretation, satisfiability and entailment can be used freely. Then we can replace the first RDF entailment pattern with the simpler and more direct</p>
+
+<!--<p>Define a <dfn>generalized RDF triple</dfn> to be a triple &lt;x, y, z&gt; where x and z can be an IRI, a blank node or a literal, and y can be an IRI or a blank node; and extend this to the rest of RDF, so that a generalized RDF graph is a set of generalized RDF triples. -->
+<p>Consider <a class="externalDFN" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-generalized-rdf">generalized RDF triples, graphs, and datasets</a> instead of RDF triples, graphs and datasets (extending the generalization used in [[HORST04]] and following exactly the terms used in [[OWL2-PROFILES]]).  The semantics described in this document applies to the generalization without change, so that the notions of interpretation, satisfiability and entailment can be used freely. Then we can replace the first RDF entailment pattern with the simpler and more direct</p>
 
 <div class="tabletitle">G-RDF-D entailment pattern.</div> 
 <table  border="1" >
@@ -1231,7 +1237,7 @@
 </section>
 
 
-<section class="appendix" class="informative"  id="whatnot"><h2 id="non_semantics">RDF reification, containers and collections. (Informative)</h2>
+<section class="appendix" class="informative"  id="whatnot"><h2 id="non_semantics">RDF reification, containers and collections (Informative)</h2>
 
 <p>The RDF semantic conditions do not place formal constraints on the meaning 
   of much of the RDF vocabulary which is intended for use in describing containers and bounded collections,