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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:50:06 -0600
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: phayes@ihmc.us, herman.ter.horst@philips.com, jjc@hpl.hp.com, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <1074088206.23705.3203.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 03:46, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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

??? My inbox is full of discussion of this change, all copied
to a public forum.

>  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,

That they're noticeable is a fact: you noticed. That they're substantive
is a matter of judgement... that they're negative is your opinion.

>  as
> evidenced by several of my recent messages to www-rdf-comments@w3.org.

Scanning your messages, it's not clear to me which of them, or which
parts of them, demonstrates the negative effects beyond matters
of mathematical taste and style.

(The same goes for Pat's argument to make the change, by the way;
I have perhaps missed some relevant arguments, but it's not 100%
clear to me why the community would benefit from the changes.)

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

No, your position is clearly on record.

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 08:50:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:08 UTC