W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: [closed] Issue horrocks-01 rdfs:comment semantics

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 21:43:11 +0100
Message-ID: <16058.49503.936154.234401@merlin.horrocks.net>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

On May 8, Brian McBride writes:
> At 16:51 08/05/2003 +0100, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> 
> >The decision is acceptable, even if not (in my opinion) optimal.
> >
> >I would like to be considered a co-submitter of comment #danc-04 and
> >informed about its resolution.
> 
> Thanks for the response Ian, done.
> 
> The formal notification has not yet come out, but for your information, the 
> RDFCore decided last week to postpone danc-04 and add it to our postponed 
> issues list.

OK - thanks.

Ian

> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-fyi
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> >Regards,
> >
> >Ian Horrocks
> >
> >On April 29, pat hayes writes:
> > > Ian,
> > >
> > > In
> > >
> > > 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0338.html
> > >
> > > you made a last call comment on the RDFCore last call WD's, recorded as
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horrocks-01
> > >
> > > The RDFCore WG has considered your comment and resolved not to accept it:
> > >
> > >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0207.html
> > >
> > > This comment gave rise to considerable discussion. While the WG is
> > > sympathetic to the need for semantically empty comments, to add a
> > > special syntax for them was considered too much of a change to RDF at
> > > this stage and possibly outside the WG charter.  Also, the WG noted
> > > that applications can store such comments in an external RDF surface
> > > syntax (eg in XML). Concerning the proposal to render rdf:comment
> > > entailments inoperative (vacuously true) by semantic fiat, the WG
> > > notes that other users desire rdf:comment entailments to hold, so
> > > modifying the semantics to make all such entailments trivial would be
> > > controversial.  Moreover, we note that OWL can impose such a condition
> > > within OWL-RDF as part of a semantic extension.
> > >
> > > Please respond to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> > > indicating whether this decision is acceptable.
> > >
> > > Please note also, that there is another, related and as yet
> > > unresolved comment:
> > >
> > >    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-04
> > >
> > > which requests adding a trivially true predicate.  Would you like to be
> > > considered a co-submitter of this comment and informed about its 
> > resolution?
> > >
> > > Pat Hayes
> > >
> > > --
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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 Thursday, 8 May 2003 16:43:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT