- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:14:09 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: connolly@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
>> >>a) You have found a significant flaw in my purported proof. >>b) It is not clear yet whether this is fatal or not. >> > > I am of the opinion that B1 B2 does not work with the current RDFS semantics. > > >>c) I am willing to try and repair it, but we would need minimally one week >>to do the repair and a second to verify, more realistically two weeks for >>each stage (i.e. a month total). >> > > Well, I'm not prepared to have it supplant other things that I need to do in > September so I wouldn't be prepared to have any completion date before > mid-October, and then ISWC intervenes. > Thanks, this is clear. > >>Does that look fair? And if the WG want us to keep trying are you happy to >>review a further attempt (making increased use of comprehension)? >> > > I am very leery of making changes to the OWL semantics at this stage. I > would be willing to spend some effort to see whether a change would be > work, but I am not optimistic. Just consider the problems with last-minute > changes to RDF. I was not suggesting changes to the OWL Semantics, I will reply further on the other thread trying to show that the entailment in the modified example holds (while I agree that it demonstrates a non-trivial hole in the earlier proof). Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 08:32:29 UTC