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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:28:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20040114.092803.82901525.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.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

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:15:40 +0000

> 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.

Are there other changes to entailment being proposed for RDF, even changes
that do not appear to affect OWL?  I would view any such change in a
negative way.

> 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.

Sounds acceptable.

> Brian

peter
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 09:28:14 UTC

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