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 09:25:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20040114.092538.133568805.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: phayes@ihmc.us, herman.ter.horst@philips.com, jjc@hpl.hp.com, hendler@cs.umd.edu, schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl, sandro@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:50:06 -0600


> > 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... 

Well, for starters, the change would invalidate the test cases
datatypes/test006 and datatypes/test010.  This alone qualifies it as

> that they're negative is your opinion.

Agreed, but my opinion should count here.

> >  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.

Well, I have pointed out several changes to D-entailment that result from
the change.  I view each of these changes as negative.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 09:29:40 UTC

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