Re: [closed] pfps-05

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'm certainly not going to say that the closure
rules are complete under these conditions.  I'm not even going to spend
much time trying to investigate the matter until a better version of the
document is available.


I've spent a lot of time looking over the RDF semantics.  Each time I have
found serious errors.  I have brought these errors to the attention of the
RDF Core WG or to the editor of the RDF semantics document.  At one of
these times the RDF Core WG voted to advance the RDF semantics document to
Last Call status.  This does not lead to a harmonious relationship.

So, if I am given a document that is complete and internally consistent,
I'll try to schedule some time to look it over.  However, this is going to
have to be on an informal and time-available basis, as I do have other
commitments on my time.  

My view has for some time been that there have been major changes to the
RDF semantics made after the recent last call.  I believe that this calls
for a complete re-review of all the RDF documents and is best handled in
another last call.  I'll even sign up to do a formal review during such a
process. 


I am not happy with this situation as it makes my work with OWL much more
difficult but I do not see any other way of proceeding.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies

Received on Saturday, 31 May 2003 10:20:49 UTC