- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:03:27 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi pat, I'm sorry, you seem not to have agreed - my mistake. Please see [1] for your latest response. Can you please discuss with Richard to see how this might be resolved? Thanks. Regards, Dave [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0236.html On Oct 18, 2011, at 17:40, Pat Hayes wrote: > Um... can you point out where I agreed to this? Or if a vote was taken and I missed it? > > I honestly do not see how to make sense of this idea of an 'empty' datatype, I think allowing it is quite unnecessary, is going to achieve nothing but sow widespread confusion, and I would rather not make any such change to the semantics. > > Pat > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 12:33 PM, David Wood wrote: > >> Hi Pat, >> >> Can you please tell us whether ISSUE-76 [1] can be closed? I think it is now an editorial issue in RDF Semantics. Thanks. >> >> This completes my action at [2]. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/76 >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/108 >> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 23:03:57 UTC