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 14:09:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20040114.140937.105427362.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ihmc.us
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: Re: A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:52:29 -0600

> >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

[...]

> >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.
> 
> Just to clarify: as of my last message, there are no changes to any 
> RDF entailments now being proposed. The only change, apart from 
> tightening up the wording in places, is that the D-semantic 
> conditions now only require that literal values of literals in the 
> actual vocabulary are in LV.  This brings the D-semantic conditions 
> in line with the other conditions in a way that Herman requested, but 
> makes no difference to any any entailments.  The class extension of a 
> datatype name is the value space of the datatype.
> 
> Pat

Either there is some change to the semantics, in which case the change
should not be made at this late date, or there is no change to the
semantics, in which case there is no reason to make the change.

The only changes that should be made at this stage are changes that have no
effect whatsoever, e.g., fixing typographical erros.  As this does not
appear to be the case, I don't see any reason to make the change.

peter
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 14:09:49 UTC

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