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

Re: [closed] pfps-04, pfps-05: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:18:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20031106.161821.50024731.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ihmc.us
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: Re: [closed] pfps-04, pfps-05: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:39:35 -0600

> >Well, it appears that there is nothing for me to do, as this thread has
> >already been marked as closed.
> 
> The status of this, as i understand it, is that while we have indeed 
> closed it,  we did so under your objection.  So my question may have 
> been better phrased as, can we take it that you (now) find our 
> response satisfactory, so that we are not obliged to record you as 
> registering an objection to it?
> 
> Pat

Somehow I seem to have a continuing misunderstanding of the process.

However, for what it's worth, the proposed post-last-call-2 changes to the
RDF Semantics document would make my objections here moot.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 16:19:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:33 GMT