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

>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.

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