- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 13:23:27 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>I should have said: my proposed fix is to drop this paragraph. OK, I'm fine with that, Consider it gone. Also I think the next para should be folded into the earlier 'we arent doing that' list of disclaimers in the 0.1 intro, would you agree? Then the remaining first para of 1.3 can just serve as a technical intro. to that section. Pat > >#g >-- > > >I don't think this is necessarily a show-stopper, but I think it >should be considered carefully: > >In [1] Section 1.3, 2nd para, talks about treating the assertion of >a graph as merge with some other referenced graphs. While we may >wish to discuss this as a possibility (personally, I am very uneasy >about it), I think it could muddy the waters in a document that >otherwise defines very clearly the meaning of an RDF *graph*. I >think the issues of how RDF documents may be combined to create the >RDF graphs on which entailments are defined should be kept very >separate from the model theory itself. > >Review continues... > >#g >-- > >[1] >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0022/01-RDF_20Model_20Theory_Oct_draft.html > > >------------------- >Graham Klyne ><GK@NineByNine.org> -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 14:23:12 UTC