- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 23:22:27 -0800
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote: > Pat, > > > I'm sorry but I very strongly disagree with your response. It reinforces my decision to formally object. I understand that you do not agree with me, and of course you must act according to your conscience. As we have both stated our positions in great detail already, I will not repeat myself here. Just one response to a direct ad-hominem: ... > To say that it introduces fewer new concepts is dishonest: you behave as if RDF semantics has been defined without datatype map and that Michael and I are trying to impose a new concept that would fondamentally change RDF. It is the opposite: D-entailment has been defined in terms of datatype map, as well as it is in other specifications, and you are trying to impose a change to the existing standard. By doing so, you even added a new concept, recognised datatype IRIs. What I meant (and I was speaking quite honestly) was that a new reader of the document, learning about RDF for the first time, is obliged to digest fewer new concepts with the current formulation than they were with the 2004 stye of explanation. (Instead of two kinds of maps on IRIs, they need only think about one, which has already been introduced. The idea of IRIs identifying datatypes is widely familiar and unproblematic for most readers.) > Who are "we"? The editors. Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred) phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 07:22:58 UTC