- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:13:15 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:03 AM 12/16/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>At 03:12 PM 12/15/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>>@@I would like us to have this stated explicitly somewhere, and the >>>concepts doc is the obvious place. Hint, hint?? This is actually quite >>>timely, as there is mounting political pressure (mostly from the RuleML >>>folk) to insert highly nonmonotonic extensions into the webont mix, and >>>I'd like us to lock down the point that anything non-mon is not an RDF >>>semantic extension. >> >>I'm sympathetic, but we're locked down for last-call-candidate review, >>and this doesn't seem critical. > >I think it is cirtical that we as a group say this clearly *somewhere*. > >>I guess we could this as a comment to consider along with other WG LCC >>comments? > >Sure. OK, I've started a last-call-candidate issues list [1]; this one is [2]. #g -- [1] http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues-group-lcc.html [2] http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDF-Concepts/101-MonotonicLogic.html ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 06:25:38 UTC