- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:15:40 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: phayes@ihmc.us, 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
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > > 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?] Hi Peter, This message is to confirm that I've seen your protest. I'm currently interpretting it to refer to the substantive change described in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2004JanMar/0015.html i.e. concerning: [[ The only substantive aspect of this change which may effect OWL is that in RDF, D-interpretations would no longer be required to interpret the class extension of the datatype name as being identical to the value space of the datatype (instead, it could be a subset of that class extension.) ]] Its important to be clear about what change you are protesting, as there is another proposal for what I expect to be minor editorial bug fixes and I want to be clear that you are not protesting about those. As to whether this is official enough: - in the (in my opinion) unlikely event of this change being proposed to the WG and being accepted by the WG, then any recommendation to the director to make the change will draw prominent attention to your protest. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 09:18:48 UTC