ACTION 2003-03-14#11 ([closed] horrocks-01 ??)

Re.  ACTION 2003-03-14#11, I suggest we send these words to Ian:

You made a last call comment [horrocks-01] captured in :

This comment gave rise to considerable discussion. While the WG is 
sympathetic to the need for semantically empty comments, to add a 
special syntax for them was considered too much of a change to RDF at 
this stage and possibly outside the WG charter.  Also, the WG noted 
that applications can store such comments in an external RDF surface 
syntax (eg in XML). Concerning the proposal to render rdf:comment 
entailments inoperative (vacuously true) by semantic fiat, the WG 
notes that other users desire rdf:comment entailments to hold, so 
modifying the semantics to make all such entailments trivial would be 
controversial. Moreover, we note that OWL can impose such a condition 
within OWL-RDF as part of a semantic extension.

After due consideration, therefore, the RDFCore WG has resolved to 
not accept this comment.


If the WG is happy with this, I could post it to rdf-comments 
immediately. Brian, your call.


IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola               			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501            				(850)291 0667    cell	   for spam

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 15:23:51 UTC