W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: [closed] pfps-05

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:21:58 -0500
Message-Id: <p05210623bb01280d2444@[]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>Subject: Re: [closed] pfps-05
>Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:39:24 -0500
>>  >From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>>  >Subject: Re: [closed] pfps-05
>>  >Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 17:20:17 -0500
>>  >
>>  >[...]
>>  >
>>  >>  What would it take to convince you? How many entailments do you want
>>  >>  to be convinced of? Your requirements for being satisfied seem
>>  >>  open-ended and expandable. Unless I have some indication what you
>>  >>  will accept as a sufficient condition to satisfy this comment, I do
>>  >>  not propose to set out to offer any further response.
>>  >>
>>  >>  Pat
>>  >
>>  >Well, then don't expect any sign-off from me.
>>  >
>>  >What do you want, a blank cheque?  The current document is incomplete and
>>  >internally inconsistent.
>>  I do not want a blank cheque, as you put it, but we are obliged by
>>  W3C protocols to deal with comments in isolation to some extent, so
>>  if you are unable to sign off on any comment until you are satisfied
>>  on everything, then we probably never will reach sign-off by you.
>>  Brian is anxious for us to get the issues dealt with, and we seem to
>>  have to do this by a piecemeal process. I was not asking you to
>>  approve the entire document, only the part of it which addressed your
>>  comment.
>My comment was that the RDFS closure rules are incomplete.  There is no way
>that I can sign off on this until I see a finished version of the model
>theory and the closure rules, which I have not yet seen.

OK, then I misunderstood the point of your comment. I agree, you 
cannot sign off on completeness until you see the whole thing. 
However, I might as well tell you right now that I  do not plan to 
offer a completely written out proof of the RDFS closure lemma, so 
you may never feel able to sign off on this. I think that you are 
being unreasonable, given that the entire comment refers to a 
non-normative section of the document.

>From my end it
>looks exactly like you are asking for a blank cheque.
>If the process is getting in the way of doing the right thing, then I
>suggest that you get the process changed.
>>  Le me suggest that we compromise. The only parts of the document
>>  which affect OWL are the normative parts.  None of the rules tables
>>  or appendices are normative. (I note that if the OWL documents were
>>  held to the same standard that you are holding me to, then AS&S ought
>>  to include complete and correct systems of inference rules for all
>>  three versions of OWL together with completeness proofs. )
>This is a false and misleading statement.  If S&AS contained inference
>rules that it claimed to be complete and correct, then yes, they had better
>be complete and correct and there had better be something to back up the
>claim.  However, S&AS has no such inference rules.
>This, of course, gives rise to a simple solution to the ongoing problems
>with the closure rules - just remove them.

That would provide no extra utility and serve no purpose. I might 
remove the claim that they are complete, if I am unable to prove it 
to my satisfaction.


IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 12:22:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:06 UTC