- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:21:52 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <21A02682-0C4C-41E1-8773-0DE33B7A9DFD@inf.unibz.it>
On 31 Jan 2006, at 18:31, Pat Hayes wrote: >> Let me compare 3 different semantic definitions of e-matching. The >> first >> is "Pat's" definition > > For the record, this is the definition that we all agreed on > informally after extended email discussions, For the record: No. We agreed on the orderedmerge version (I remember a looong phone call with you when you agreed on our Nov. 2 document), and you volunteered to propose a text. The text that came in at the end was your union text, over which we never agreed. > and which you modified, unilaterally and without discussion, > between the final group-CCd email and the telecon vote. If you had > suggested it in email, with the justification you propose below, I > would have had time to point out the error in your reasoning. Clearly you don't read email even when you answer to them <http:// www.w3.org/mid/p06230902bffc8fc19480@%5B192.168.2.2%5D>: """ From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:33:08 -0600 To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it> Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org> >What do you think of our proposal that simplifies the current text >by having the union instead of the ordered merge? Congratulations. I wish I had thought of it myself. Pat """ --e.
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 22:56:16 UTC