W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2004

A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:46:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20040114.044638.93653044.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ihmc.us
Cc: herman.ter.horst@philips.com, jjc@hpl.hp.com, hendler@cs.umd.edu, schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl, connolly@w3.org, sandro@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: Re: RDF Semantics: corrections
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:23:22 -0600


> Yes, I understand that. My question is, however, 
> is 2 even possible? That is, I want to know if I 
> (actually the RDF WG) am choosing between 1 and 
> 2, or will I (etc.)  be forced to choose between 
> 1 and 3? My (our) decision depends on the answer.


Well OF COURSE 2 is possible.  The change is a weakening of the RDF spec,
and thus could, in principle, be hidden by suitable strengthening of the
OWL spec.  However, if ANY such change is made to the RDF specs at this
late date, I would generate a public protest on the grounds that an
inadequately publicized substantive change is being made to the RDF specs
during the PR stage and this change has noticeable and negative effects to
the RDF specs.

In fact, let me do so now.

I, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, a recognized expert in the field of knowledge
representation, an author of the W3C OWL specification, and a kibbutzer
(sp?) in the design of the semantics of RDF, do hereby protest against the
proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping on the grounds that they have
substantive, noticeable, and negative effects on the design of RDF, as
evidenced by several of my recent messages to www-rdf-comments@w3.org.

[Does this have to be sent anywhere else to be totally official?]

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 04:52:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:22 UTC