Re: [closed] pfps-05

>From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>Subject: Re: [closed] pfps-05
>Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:39:24 -0500
>
>>  >From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>>  >Subject: Re: [closed] pfps-05
>>  >Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 17:20:17 -0500
>>  >
>>  >[...]
>>  >
>>  >>  What would it take to convince you? How many entailments do you want
>>  >>  to be convinced of? Your requirements for being satisfied seem
>>  >>  open-ended and expandable. Unless I have some indication what you
>>  >>  will accept as a sufficient condition to satisfy this comment, I do
>>  >>  not propose to set out to offer any further response.
>>  >>
>>  >>  Pat
>>  >
>>  >Well, then don't expect any sign-off from me.
>>  >
>>  >What do you want, a blank cheque?  The current document is incomplete and
>>  >internally inconsistent.
>>
>>  I do not want a blank cheque, as you put it, but we are obliged by
>>  W3C protocols to deal with comments in isolation to some extent, so
>>  if you are unable to sign off on any comment until you are satisfied
>>  on everything, then we probably never will reach sign-off by you.
>>  Brian is anxious for us to get the issues dealt with, and we seem to
>>  have to do this by a piecemeal process. I was not asking you to
>>  approve the entire document, only the part of it which addressed your
>>  comment.
>
>My comment was that the RDFS closure rules are incomplete.  There is no way
>that I can sign off on this until I see a finished version of the model
>theory and the closure rules, which I have not yet seen.

OK, then I misunderstood the point of your comment. I agree, you 
cannot sign off on completeness until you see the whole thing. 
However, I might as well tell you right now that I  do not plan to 
offer a completely written out proof of the RDFS closure lemma, so 
you may never feel able to sign off on this. I think that you are 
being unreasonable, given that the entire comment refers to a 
non-normative section of the document.

>From my end it
>looks exactly like you are asking for a blank cheque.
>
>If the process is getting in the way of doing the right thing, then I
>suggest that you get the process changed.
>
>>  Le me suggest that we compromise. The only parts of the document
>>  which affect OWL are the normative parts.  None of the rules tables
>>  or appendices are normative. (I note that if the OWL documents were
>>  held to the same standard that you are holding me to, then AS&S ought
>>  to include complete and correct systems of inference rules for all
>>  three versions of OWL together with completeness proofs. )
>
>This is a false and misleading statement.  If S&AS contained inference
>rules that it claimed to be complete and correct, then yes, they had better
>be complete and correct and there had better be something to back up the
>claim.  However, S&AS has no such inference rules.
>
>This, of course, gives rise to a simple solution to the ongoing problems
>with the closure rules - just remove them.

That would provide no extra utility and serve no purpose. I might 
remove the claim that they are complete, if I am unable to prove it 
to my satisfaction.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam

Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 12:22:01 UTC