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

Re: pfps-04

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:14:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030723.131408.01264570.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: pfps-04
Date: 21 Jul 2003 14:22:45 +0100

> Peter,
> 
> with reference to your comment recorded as
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04
> 
> the RDFCore WG has resolved to accept your comment.
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0173.html
> 
> As you know, there have been extensive modifications to the RDF 
> entailment rules since your comment was written
> 
> The current editor's draft, which is now stable enough to review,
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
> 
> now contains a version of the RDF entailment rules which we believe 
> corresponds directly to the RDF semantic conditions in the sense 
> described. You can check the proof contained in the specification.
> 
> Please reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org, 
> indicating whether this response adequately addresses your comment.
> 
> Brian


There is still a mismatch between the RDF Entailment Rules, which, if
complete, determine that XML Literals are not the same as strings, and the
RDF model theory, which is stated to be ``agnostic'' on this issue.

[Usual disclaimer about other problems.]

peter
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 13:15:43 GMT

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