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

Re: [closed] pfps-15 Say anything quote

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:42:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030319.164253.108948925.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: fmanola@mitre.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: [closed] pfps-15 Say anything quote
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:20:06 +0000

> At 13:39 17/03/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >I believe that this response does not address all of my comments in the
> >referenced email message.  Note in particular that several of the quotes I
> >used in my messages do not come from Primer.
> Peter,
> I'd like to point out that the WG's response, conveyed to you by Frank, was 
> to the issue the WG recorded, as noted in:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0292.html
> [[
> We need to be clear about what the issue is that we are identifying.
> The issue
>     http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-15
> concerns the sentence in the primer:
> [[
> These examples also illustrate one of the basic architectural principles of
> the Web, which is that anyone should be able say anything they want about
> existing resources [BERNERS-LEE98].
> ]]
> which Peter states is contradicted by the fact that not all graphs can be
> serialized in RDF/XML.
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0194.html
> Frank has suggested editorial rewording that is not acceptable to Peter.
> This is not an issue of general applicability'.
> ]]
> Does the WG's decision resolve THIS ISSUE to your satisfaction?
> Brian

I have never indicated that my comment ``Can RDF say anything about
anything?'' was solely concerned with the RDF Primer.  My first message in
this thread, archived at
has one quote from the Primer and two from Concepts.  The first response,
from you, archived at 
states, in part, ``As this comment affects several documents, I'll
respond.''  My response, archived at 
further brings in the RDF Syntax document.

The message that I received, accepting the comment as an issue, indicates
that the remedy that the RDF Core WG has decided on would consist of
letting the RDF Primer editor suggest a change to the RDF Primer.  I
believe that this response does not address the entirety of my comment.  I
am unaware of any other efforts that the RDF Core WG will be undertaking to
address the rest of my comment.  Therefore I have indicated that I believe
that the response does not address my comment to my satisfaction, and,
moreover, have provided one reason why.

I am unaware of any part of the W3C process that requires me to measure the
acceptability of the response by a characterisation of my comments
determined by the RDF Core WG.  The RDF Core WG is, of course, free to make
their own determination of what I meant in my comments, and respond using
this determination, but I think that I am free to differ.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:44:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:20 UTC