W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: model theory publication draft

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:39:53 +0100
Message-ID: <3BA8A029.2000008@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Thanks Pat!

It would be good to get this published.  We said we would allow a week
to give folks time to review publication candidates.  We have less than
that before Friday.  However, if folks have reviewed it to their
satisfaction by then, I'd see no point in delaying.

So unless there are objections, I may ask at Friday's telecon
whether we are happy to publish.  Anyone in the WG can veto that by
saying that they have not had time to review it, either by email
or at the telecon, in which case we'll delay another week.  If we
can review it by Friday and decide to publish that would be good.

Regarding the missing lemma's appendix, I'm not sure its absence is
a show stopper.  Would it be ok to hold off on that till the next
version?  Lets publish based on what we have, otherwise we get into
"there just one more bit I'd like to add" syndrome.

Brian


Pat Hayes wrote:

> At last the model theory is in readable form, at
> 
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF%20MT-currentdraft.html
> 
> There is still an appendix 2 missing (with the proofs of the lemmas in 
> it) which I will attach in the next couple of days, but I thought the 
> rest of it was readable without that.
> 
> The only really new part is the discussion of entailment in RDFS in 
> section 5.
> 
> I've tried to take account of all the comments on what parts were 
> obscure, misleading, etc..,
> 
> I've added a general introductory paragraph for model-theoretic newbies, 
> and incorporated some comments here and there which were once in 
> separate sections in earlier drafts (eg 3.1) .  If anyone feels that the 
> brief comment on containers (section 6) goes beyond the action item, 
> then I can take it out again.
> 
> Pat
> 
> PS. This was made using dreamweaver, so its better HTML than the last 
> effort, but it hasn't yet been run through the W3C  filters.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 09:43:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:46 EDT