- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 06:44:37 -0400
- To: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On 8/6/24 04:30, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: [...] > I hope this makes it clearer. Note that this doesn’t involve RDFS entailment. On 8/6/24 06:05, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: > > >> On 6. Aug 2024, at 10:50, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: >> [a table *involving predicates from the rdfs namespace*] >> >> >> —e. > > Thanks, that is indeed the query result that I’m aiming for. These two statements can only both be true if semantic effects from RDFS properties are part of simple entailment or are visible in SPARQL BGP matching with no entailment regime in force. I am becoming more and more confused, not about the details of this line of discussion, but the entire basis of it. At this point I think the working group needs to concentrate on turning the baseline, which was agreed on, into the documents that the working group needs to produce instead of yet again getting into unfocused discussion on different proposals. My opinion is that the working group has bent over backwards to accommodate what appear to be minority views to the detriment of making progress on the activities that are mandated by its charter. This is the point at which proposals should be put to cloture votes so that progress can be made on the required activities of the working group. peter
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2024 10:44:43 UTC