- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 09:24:20 -0400
- To: macgregor@isi.edu
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Bob-- [Catching up with some backed-up Primer work]. In message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0003.html you indicated to Graham Klyne that it was OK to deal with your concerns about whether RDF supported expressing propositional attitudes (we've agreed that it doesn't) by removing the material that seemed to suggest it did. Earlier, in message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0466.html, you'd agreed with my suggestion that I'd try to deal with this in the Primer by explicitly describing the propositional attitude problem, and saying that we don't support expressing those things. Given what Graham is going to do, I'm now reluctant to explicitly bring up propositional attitudes in the Primer (since it won't now come up the the Concepts spec), only to say that we don't support them. It seems to me bringing this subject up might create unnecessary confusion. So could we modify our agreement in the latter message to NOT talk about propositional attitudes in the Primer (the other Primer fixes we agreed on concerning reificiation would still stand)? --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 2 May 2003 09:03:14 UTC