- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:47:51 +0000
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, pfps@research.bell-labs.com, phayes@ihmc.us, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
herman.ter.horst@philips.com wrote: > > "For each pair <E,d> in D, it is assumed that > SI(E)=d and that CEXTI(d)=V(d)." > A question, and then comment: Qu: is this change designed to work with your proposed changes to RDF semantics or to compensate if those changes do not get approved by RDF Core? (I note you say that it is harmless in either case - just as a member of both groups should I be seeking to vote for both this change and the other changes or only the RDF core changes?) Comment: This looks harmless enough, but I am increasingly worried that the possible change to the PR words of RDF Semantics are not going to have sufficient review (and any consequential changes in OWL Semantics). I am currently leaning towards voting against any such proposal on those grounds (on both WebOnt and RDFCore). I have informally found support from HP colleagues for such a position. Any such vote against should be seen as a vote *for* the PR documents. I do not think the problems will lead to interoperability errors, and so are not *critical* before publishing rec. Without adequate review, I would prefer to take these issues later, i.e. a preparedness to create an erratum if necessary. Of course, if we see a concrete proposal for change, and there is adequate review (e.g. from Pat, Herman and Ian or Peter) and I have a short time to review it (ideally with the HP implementors) then my concerns would be addressed. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 12:49:21 UTC