W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

Re: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues with rdf:text --> Could you please check it one more time?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 19:42:33 -0500
Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, public-rdf-text@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Message-Id: <F67D47BA-0CEB-4241-A780-490C0CBCB249@ihmc.us>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>

On May 21, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:

> Quick note -
>
>    I have not been tracking this issue, but it does seem a very bad
> idea (well worthy of a formal objection) in general to create a
> incompatibility with something as a basic as a text string, ala plan
> literal. As this seems to be an issue almost entirely motivated by
> formal semantics, I see *no* reason why formal semantic motivations
> should cause pain for users and already existing data.
>
> Why not just in RIF and OWL2 have plain literals default to be
> treated as having a data-type of "rdf:text" (or whatever is needed in
> the formal semantics), and never require the explicit edition of any
> work by the users?
>
> In particular, ""Family Guy" would then default to ""Family Guy@". Why
> is this option not tenable? Seems rather sensible to me, but I assume
> there *must* be some reason for not doing it that way.

That is almost exactly what Ive just proposed.

As you and I already know, Harry, our minds think very much alike.

Pat


>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>>
>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Boris Motik wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have to agree that the text in the rdf:text specification might  
>>> not
>>> reflect
>>> correctly the intentions I expressed. Quite frankly, we (i.e., the  
>>> authors
>>> of
>>> the rdf:text specification) haven't been really aware of all the
>>> repercussions
>>> and possible interpretations of our spec. The text you refer to at  
>>> the end
>>> of
>>> this e-mail has been introduced as a reaction to one of the earlier
>>> comments by
>>> the SPARQL WG.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, here is what the goals of rdf:text are:
>>
>> Thanks for this summary.
>>
>>>
>>> 1. Both RIF and OWL 2 find the distinction between plain and typed
>>> literals
>>> painful. This is because, whenever one refers to literals, one  
>>> needs two
>>> subcases: for a plain and for a typed literal.
>>
>> So?
>>
>>> Both RIF and OWL 2 have
>>> independently come up with exactly the same idea: they opted to  
>>> represent
>>> the
>>> "semantic content" of plain literals through typed literals whose  
>>> value is
>>> the
>>> same as the corresponding plain literals.
>>
>> Thanks for making this clear in a public forum. OWL 2 and RIF are
>> deliberately, by design, creating a central incompatibility with a  
>> basic
>> feature of RDF. This  seems to me to be a quite extraordinary and  
>> amazing
>> observation, one that deserves to be publicized as widely as  
>> possible (which
>> is why I am CCing this to semantic-web@w3.org). Why would two W3C  
>> WGs set
>> out to deliberately *create* interoperability problems with other W3C
>> standards, just when those standards are beginning to achieve  
>> widespread
>> acceptance?
>>
>>> This makes the definitions and the
>>> semantic treatment of literals in both RIF and OWL 2 much simpler.
>>
>> It makes it more elegant, yes, but is there really a PROBLEM here  
>> that needs
>> to be solved? That is, what actual issues for users or  
>> implementations are
>> posed by the presence of two literal forms? Or is this discomfort  
>> simply a
>> matter of theoretician's feelings of inelegance or clumsiness?  
>> Because if
>> the latter (as I strongly suspect), this is not a sufficient reason  
>> to
>> attempt to retroactively undermine the existing RDF standard, and to
>> deliberately create what I believe will be troublesome and awkward  
>> problems
>> for an entire generation of implementations, and certainly for a  
>> majority of
>> existing ones. Creating problems like this is exactly what W3C WGs  
>> should
>> NOT be doing, especially at a critical point in the deployment of  
>> SWeb
>> technology. Google just quietly announced their cautious support  
>> for RDFA.
>> It is not exactly a great idea for two W3C WGs to be at that very  
>> moment
>> deliberately attempting to undermine one of the basic aspects of  
>> the RDF
>> design. Elegance, is, frankly, not of central importance right now.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Both RIF and OWL 2 need a mechanism to refer to the set of all  
>>> plain
>>> literals. For example, in OWL 2 you might want to say "the range  
>>> is a
>>> piece of
>>> text".
>>
>> That problem can be trivially solved by introducing a class of such  
>> values,
>> and giving it a reserved name. RDF plain literals denote  
>> themselves, so that
>> the class of plain literal values is also the class of plain  
>> literals which
>> is also the class of pieces of text.
>>
>>> In OWL 2 this is very important because of facets. Using a  
>>> datatype for
>>> this purpose is natural.
>>
>> Natural. maybe, but not REQUIRED. And given the problems that it  
>> causes,
>> maybe it isn't so natural after all. Think of OWL 2 as part of an  
>> existing
>> world-wide deployment of SWeb systems, and then ask if it is  
>> 'natural'.
>>
>>> Both RIF and OWL 2 have chosen to follow the
>>> definitions of datatypes from XML Schema. Thus, each datatype  
>>> consists of
>>> a set
>>> of lexical values, a value space, and a L2V mapping. Plain  
>>> literals do not
>>> follow these principles
>>
>> Of course they do. Abstractly, the plain literal 'datatype' is as  
>> follows:
>> the lexical space is all character strings; the value space is all  
>> character
>> strings; and the L2V mapping is the identity map. Obvious extension  
>> to the
>> case of tagged literals. Where is the conceptual problem here?
>>
>>> ; therefore, rdf:text defines lexical values that encode
>>> the content of plain literals.
>>
>> Giving rise immediately, and predictably, to the interoperability  
>> nightmare
>> of there being two ways to represent one ubiquitous kind of thing -  
>> a piece
>> of unmarked text, with an optional language tag -  which require  
>> exotic
>> means to establish their equivalence, and different specs requiring
>> different ways to be used. This is an elementary systems-engineering
>> mistake, a decision which could have been designed to create global  
>> systemic
>> problems. (Even the "managerial" situation of narrowly focussed WGs  
>> working
>> on parts of the problem in isolation is classic. Future systems  
>> engineering
>> 101 course textbooks will be able to cite this as an example.)
>>
>>> Now as I have already said, we have not had the complete store as  
>>> clear in
>>> our
>>> minds right from the beginning. Given all the LC comments (which  
>>> have by
>>> the way
>>> have been quite useful and have significantly improved the spec),  
>>> however,
>>> both
>>> RIF and OWL 2 have agreed that the view I proposed in my e-mail is  
>>> the
>>> appropriate one (at least from the RIF and OWL 2 points of view).
>>
>> All SWeb WG's points of view should be primarily to further the  
>> deployment
>> of the SWeb.
>>
>>> As I've stated
>>> in my summary e-mail, to achieve this we simply need to remove  
>>> from the
>>> specification any special treatment of rdf:text: this should be a  
>>> datatype
>>> like
>>> any other. This is precisely the part of the document that you are
>>> referring to.
>>>
>>> Thus, the final version of the document would not mention any
>>> interoperability
>>> problems.
>>
>> How wonderful. We will not mention them, so they will have gone  
>> away. Or,
>> more precisely, they have not gone away, but they aren't OUR  
>> problem.  We
>> are just doing our job, and making the Semantic Web work isn't in  
>> our WG
>> charter: we are just concerned with RIF/OWL.
>>
>> Sorry about the sarcastic tone, but this really does deserve it.
>>
>>> Furthermore, we may also rework the introduction to make the  
>>> intention
>>> behind rdf:text clearer.
>>
>> Certainly, the rdf:text document is very misleading as written. It  
>> purports
>> to be about representing internationalized text, which is clearly  
>> not even
>> close to the truth, and it does not even mention the apparently real
>> motivation, which is (see above) to create incompatibilities with  
>> the RDF
>> plain literal design.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>       Boris
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org]
>>>> Sent: 20 May 2009 16:36
>>>> To: Boris Motik
>>>> Cc: 'Seaborne, Andy'; 'Alan Ruttenberg'; public-rdf-text@w3.org;  
>>>> 'Sandro
>>>> Hawke'; 'Axel Polleres'
>>>> Subject: Re: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues  
>>>> with
>>>> rdf:text
>>>> --> Could you please check it one more time?
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:38:29PM +0200, Boris Motik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I fully appreciate use case and I agree with your observation:  
>>>>> this is
>>>>
>>>> something
>>>>>
>>>>> that has to be addressed. I don't think, however, that solving  
>>>>> this
>>>>> problem
>>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>> in the domain of rdf:text. The rdf:text specification merely  
>>>>> defines yet
>>>>
>>>> another
>>>>>
>>>>> datatype by specifying it in exactly the same way as this is  
>>>>> done in XML
>>>>
>>>> Schema.
>>>>>
>>>>> This datatype is just like any other XML Schema datatype; hence,  
>>>>> the job
>>>>
>>>> from
>>>>>
>>>>> rdf:text's point of view is done.
>>>>
>>>> Ahh, perhaps we have different goals for rdf:text. rdf:text was,  
>>>> if I
>>>> understand, created to address the issue that one could not infer  
>>>> the
>>>> presenece of or the consequences of plain literals. One could fill
>>>> that hole by creating a datatype that consumes and infers plain
>>>> literals, or one could create a datatype which bijects to plain
>>>> literals. Special machinery associated with that datatype is  
>>>> required
>>>> in either case.
>>>>
>>>> (I, who was not involved in rdf:text except as an afterthought,
>>>> argue that it is intended to take the former approach. You, an
>>>> author, argue something closer to the latter.
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, the addition of rdf:text to the mix of the supported
>>>>> datatypes
>>>>
>>>> adds
>>>>>
>>>>> no new conceptual problems to SPARQL: the situation with  
>>>>> rdf:text is no
>>>>> different than with, say, xsd:integer (there are other examples as
>>>>> well).
>>>>
>>>> For
>>>>>
>>>>> example, assume that you have an RDF graph
>>>>>
>>>>> G = { <a, b, "1"^xsd:integer> }
>>>>>
>>>>> but you ask the query
>>>>>
>>>>> Q = { <a, b, "1.0"^^xsd:decimal> }.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly, G D-entails Q, so Q should be answered as TRUE in G. It  
>>>>> is not
>>>>> the
>>>>> business of XML Schema to specify how this is to be achieved:  
>>>>> XML Schema
>>>>
>>>> merely
>>>>>
>>>>> specifies what the correct answer to the above question is. It  
>>>>> is a
>>>>> SPARQL
>>>>> implementation such as OWLIM that should think of how to support  
>>>>> such a
>>>>> definition.
>>>>
>>>> SPARQL is defined in terms of the graph, so Q will fail to match  
>>>> G. As
>>>> entailments supplement the graph, a D-entailing system confronted  
>>>> with
>>>> <a, b, "1"^xsd:integer>
>>>>
>>>> will have a (notional) graph
>>>> G = { <a, b, "1"^xsd:integer> .
>>>>      <a, b, "1.0"^^xsd:decimal> . }.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say that we're aguing whether <a, b, "bob@en"^^rdf:text>  
>>>> shows up
>>>> in the graph. You propose something like:
>>>> <a, b, "bob@en"^^rdf:text> D-entails to
>>>> G = { <a, b, "bob@en"^^rdf:text> .
>>>>      <a, b, "bob"@en> . }.
>>>> while I propose it that you never utter <a, b,  
>>>> "bob@en"^^rdf:text> and
>>>> have the tools that implement the specification produce only <a, b,
>>>> "bob"@en>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know whether a solution to the above problem (with  
>>>>> xsd:integer
>>>>> and
>>>>> xsd:decimal) exists. If not, I agree that one should be developed;
>>>>> however,
>>>>
>>>> we
>>>>>
>>>>> would not go to the XML Schema WG and ask them to specify how  
>>>>> should
>>>>> SPARQL
>>>>> handle this case, would we?
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with rdf:text is *precisely* the same as the one  
>>>>> that I
>>>>> outlined
>>>>> above. At an abstract level, it can be stated as "Several  
>>>>> syntactic
>>>>> forms of
>>>>> literals get mapped to the semantically identical data values". AS
>>>>
>>>> demonstrated
>>>>>
>>>>> above, this problem exists without rdf:text, so I don't see how  
>>>>> rdf:text
>>>>
>>>> brings
>>>>>
>>>>> anything new into the whole picture. Thus, you can apply to the  
>>>>> rdf:text
>>>>
>>>> case
>>>>>
>>>>> exactly the same solution that you would apply to xsd:integer and
>>>>
>>>> xsd:decimal.
>>>>
>>>> Your proposal is analogous to the D-entailment of numeric types,  
>>>> while
>>>> I interpret the rdf:text last call wording as attempting to  
>>>> reduce the
>>>> interrop challenges that would stem from spotty coverage with  
>>>> respect
>>>> to that D-entailment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If such a solution doesn't exist yet, then the SPARQL WG should  
>>>>> address
>>>>
>>>> these
>>>>>
>>>>> issues, and it should do so in general for all datatypes  
>>>>> (xsd:integer,
>>>>> xsd:decimal, and so on), not just for rdf:text.
>>>>
>>>> I'd argue that it's more of an RDF Core issue (admitting that they
>>>> don't exist). To solve an entailment especially for SPARQL  
>>>> sidesteps
>>>> the other folks who want to know what's in the graph, for  
>>>> instance, an
>>>> RDF graph API (such as exist in Jena, Sesame, ...), other  
>>>> entailment
>>>> regimes that may or may not stack on top of OWL (imagine an
>>>> app-directed regime like FOAF smushing), as well as secondary
>>>> consumers of RDF graphs, for instance, an XSLT wich runs on the XML
>>>> results returned from a SPARQL query service.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To summarize, I think that the work from the point of view of the
>>>>> rdf:text
>>>>
>>>> WG is
>>>>>
>>>>> *done* and that we should not do anything else in this forum.
>>>>
>>>> Andy has argued that approach 1 is the only of the 3 that is
>>>> compatible with this text from the last call document:
>>>> [[
>>>> Despite the semantic equivalence between typed rdf:text literals  
>>>> and
>>>> plain literals, the presence of typed rdf:text literals in an RDF
>>>> graph might cause interoperability problems between RDF tools, as  
>>>> not
>>>> all RDF tools will support rdf:text. Therefore, before exchanging  
>>>> an
>>>> RDF graph with other RDF tools, an RDF tool that suports rdf:text  
>>>> MUST
>>>> replace in the graph each typed rdf:text literal with the
>>>> corresponding plain literal. The notion of graph exchange includes,
>>>> but is not limited to, the process of serializing an RDF graph  
>>>> using
>>>> any (normative or nonnormative) RDF syntax.
>>>> ]]. \1 is clarifying the boundries of the above graph exchange.
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>       Boris
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org]
>>>>>> Sent: 20 May 2009 13:18
>>>>>> To: Boris Motik
>>>>>> Cc: 'Seaborne, Andy'; 'Alan Ruttenberg'; public-rdf-text@w3.org;
>>>>>> 'Sandro
>>>>>> Hawke'; 'Axel Polleres'
>>>>>> Subject: Re: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues  
>>>>>> with
>>>>
>>>> rdf:text
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --> Could you please check it one more time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 09:29:00AM +0200, Boris Motik wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see the benefit of option 1, as it makes things  
>>>>>>> unnecessarily
>>>>>>
>>>>>> complex.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fewer exceptions we have, the easier it will be to actually
>>>>
>>>> implement a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> conformant system. The dichotomy between plain und typed  
>>>>>>> literals is
>>>>
>>>> just an
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> example of an exception that just makes implementation  
>>>>>>> difficult.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> introducing more special cases, I think we should unify these  
>>>>>>> whenever
>>>>>>
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore, I'm not sure whether sorting out things such as  
>>>>>>> the ones
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> out below is necessary to finalize the rdf:text specification.  
>>>>>>> Please
>>>>
>>>> note
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rdf:text already has a well-defined lexical and value space,  
>>>>>>> and this
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only* thing that we need to be able to plug rdf:text into the  
>>>>>>> model
>>>>
>>>> theory
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RDF. That is, given RDF graphs G1 and G2 possibly containing  
>>>>>>> rdf:text
>>>>>>
>>>>>> literals
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and/or plain literals, using the definitions from the present  
>>>>>>> rdf:text
>>>>>>> specification one can unambiguously answer the question  
>>>>>>> whether G1 D-
>>>>
>>>> entails
>>>>>>
>>>>>> G2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, if G1 is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <a, b, "abc@en"^^rdf:text>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and G2 is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <a, b, "abc"@en>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then, according to the existing RDF model theory document, G1
>>>>>>> D-entails
>>>>
>>>> G2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vice versa. I don't see what else is there for the rdf:text
>>>>
>>>> specification to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really think that the specification is complete. If SPARQL  
>>>>>>> or other
>>>>>>> specifications want to apply rdf:text in a different way and  
>>>>>>> create
>>>>
>>>> special
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cases, they are free to do so; however, I don't think it is in  
>>>>>>> scope
>>>>>>> of
>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rdf:text specification to solve all such problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Hesitantly re-stating use case), consider the use case of the  
>>>>>> OWLIM
>>>>>> plugin for Sesame. If OWLIM forward chains some triples into the
>>>>>> Sesame repository with objects like "bob"@en, existing SPARQL  
>>>>>> queries
>>>>>> on the existing Sesame engine will match them as expected. RIF  
>>>>>> rules
>>>>>> can consume those triples and know that any rules applying to a  
>>>>>> domain
>>>>>> of rdf:text apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Constrast that with an OWLIM which emits triples with objects  
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> "bob@en"^^rdf:text . These triples will not match conventional  
>>>>>> queries
>>>>>> intended to discover e.g. all the folks named "Bob". The Sesame  
>>>>>> SPARQL
>>>>>> implementation can be extended, but then we are in Pat's  
>>>>>> scenario of
>>>>>> fixing RDF by visiting all the deployed code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I expect that any design of rdf:text would have it reacting to  
>>>>>> plain
>>>>>> literals as if they had a datatype of rdf:text and the  
>>>>>> appropriate
>>>>>> lexical transformation. I propose that the simplest complete  
>>>>>> design is
>>>>>> one where the inference of rdf:text objects results in their
>>>>>> expression as plain literals, avoiding a dualism between
>>>>>> "bob@en"^^rdf:text and "bob"@en which would lose  
>>>>>> interroperability
>>>>>> with existing queries, graph APIs, XPaths operating on SPARQL  
>>>>>> Results,
>>>>>> non-OWL inferencing systems, ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       Boris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> request@w3.org]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Eric Prud'hommeaux
>>>>>>>> Sent: 20 May 2009 03:18
>>>>>>>> To: Seaborne, Andy
>>>>>>>> Cc: Alan Ruttenberg; public-rdf-text@w3.org; Boris Motik;  
>>>>>>>> Sandro
>>>>
>>>> Hawke;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Axel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Polleres
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: A summary of the proposal for resolving the  
>>>>>>>> issues with
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rdf:text
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --> Could you please check it one more time?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 03:57:11PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apologies:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Seaborne, Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Monday PM end before 18:00 (GMT+1)
>>>>>>>>>>> Thursday PM.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tuesday @17:00 (GMT+1) for a short call; end before 17:30.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't make the slot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Input: please consider interoperability of data between OWL  
>>>>>>>>> and RDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 is better for that than option 2 as Eric points out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is also the least change to LC and IMHO is not a  
>>>>>>>>> substantive
>>>>
>>>> change
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> follows on from the current graph exchange intent) to add the  
>>>>>>>> text
>>>>
>>>> needed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SPARQL.  Roughly: the scoping graph of an rdf-text aware D- 
>>>>>>>> entailment
>>>>
>>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BGP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> matching includes the RDF forms and does not include  
>>>>>>>> ^^rdf:text.
>>>>
>>>> (Non-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> aware
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> entailment regimes would merely treat as a datatype form.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> does anyone oppose option 1 (plain literals are considered to  
>>>>>>>> satisfy
>>>>>>>> entailments constrained to type rdf:text and entailments of  
>>>>>>>> type
>>>>
>>>> rdf:text
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> expressed as plain literals in the RDF graph)? (i'm wondering  
>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>
>>>> can
>>>>>>
>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this out before we work out scheduling this phone call.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       Andy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 19 May 2009 16:01
>>>>>>>>>> To: Axel Polleres
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Seaborne, Andy; public-rdf-text@w3.org; Boris Motik;  
>>>>>>>>>> Sandro
>>>>
>>>> Hawke;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> eric@w3.orf
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: A summary of the proposal for resolving the  
>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> rdf:text --> Could you please check it one more time?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Axel Polleres
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <axel.polleres@deri.org>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan, since you were calling for the TC, is that fixed now?
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I am afraid it is not possible before Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, let's have whoever can make it meet at 5:30 BST = 12:30
>>>>
>>>> Boston
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>> Zakim, meet on irc #rdftext for the code. I will send a code
>>>>
>>>> earlier
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Alan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -eric
>>>>
>>>> office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
>>>> mobile: +1.617.599.3509
>>>>
>>>> (eric@w3.org)
>>>> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose  
>>>> other than
>>>> email address distribution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494  
>> 3973
>> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 00:43:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:29 GMT