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

[proposed close: pfps-05]

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 21:38:45 -0700
Message-Id: <p06001a04bb5b79db6c30@[10.0.1.2]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Peter;

In your comment

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0090.html

archived as pfps-05 and accepted by the WG:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05

you indicated that the closure rules for RDFS in the LC version of 
the semantics document were incomplete, giving an example inference. 
The WG accepted this comment and made various changes to the RDFS 
(and other) rules, and indeed to the RDFS semantics, in order to 
establish completeness of a relatively simple rule set for RDFS.  You 
noted that a graph could be RDFS-inconsistent by virtue of the XML 
datatyping implicit in RDF, and we made further modifications to 
handle this case.

Your next response, however

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0178.html

seems to have enlarged the topic further, to be a kind of general 
complaint about the style of the document and the way that the rule 
sets are stated. I have replied to you on this general issue; it may 
be that we simply disagree about stylistic matters; but in any case, 
I do not feel that the discussion at this stage is concerned with the 
topic of the original comment which was accepted by the WG. I note 
that in your most recent message cited above you use 'incomplete' 
apparently in a non-technical sense; and that the property of the 
lemmas which incurs your "deep dissatisfaction"  - that they operate 
by reducing vocabulary entailment to simple entailment - has been 
present since the very first draft of the semantics document, and is 
stated explicitly in the test, but has never been remarked on 
previously: in particular, none of the comments on the LC version of 
the semantics document referred to this negatively. I also note that 
this style of rules has been used directly by implementors apparently 
with reasonable success with graphs of up to O(10|6) nodes.

As the formal process is now very late, I must ask you to please 
indicate whether the changes to the document mentioned in earlier 
emails are an acceptable response *to the point you raised in your 
original comment*, viz. the incompleteness, in the sense stated in 
the document, of the RDFS closure rules (now called entailment 
rules). This would not, of course, require you to register your 
satisfaction with every aspect of the document, but it will enable us 
to proceed with the W3C processes as far as this particular issue is 
concerned.

Please Cc your reply to rdf-comments.

Thanks.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2003 00:38:46 GMT

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