defusing objections [was Re: NotAccepted's against semantics]

Two of Peter's objections concern the translation to LBase.  I'm 
wondering whether we might defuse these objections by replacing the 
LBase appendix with a suitably worded informative reference to the LBase 
note, e.g.

[[
An alternative formulation of the semantics of RDF(S) in the form of 
axioms for the langauge LBase can be found in the LBase specification 
[ref to lbase note].
]]

Brian

Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> Peter has clarified [1] the status of some of the comments he has made 
> on the LC semantics document:
> 
> pfps-02 - translation to lbase - pfps notes the ball is in our court.
> 
> pfps-03 - translation to lbase - pfps just doesn't see the need for 
> lbase in the document
> 
> pfps-04 - rdf closure rules - pfps wants a stronger notion of 
> completeness of the closure rules
> 
> pfps-05 - rdfs closure rules - again pfps wants a stronger notion of 
> completeness of the the closure rules
> 
> pfps-06 - xml literals and LV - it is possible the latest docs fix this 
> and we have not pointed this out to pfps.
> 
> Brian
> 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0354.html