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

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

From: Ramanathan Guha <rguha@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:57:40 -0700
Message-ID: <3F732C94.4000602@us.ibm.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Me too.

guha

Dan Brickley wrote:

> * Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-09-25 18:16+0100]
> 
>>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].
>>]]
> 
> 
> I support this. While I'm an LBase fan, I could live with such a 
> repartitioning in the interests of finishing our work.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>>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
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 13:58:43 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thursday, 25 September 2003 13:58:48 EDT