W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Cut back RDFCore semantics doc

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:43:05 +0200
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDD9F9866.110C4CF5-ONC1256D48.006BDD76-C1256D48.006C51DC@agfa.be>

removing the closure rules? I'm totally unconvinced
and feeling completely lost... (again tears)
better later publish an errata!

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                    pat hayes                                                                                           
                    <phayes@ihmc.us>          To:     Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>                               
                    Sent by:                  cc:     w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org                                             
                    w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ       Subject:     Re: Cut back RDFCore semantics doc                           
                    2003-06-17 03:43 PM                                                                                 

>I had a chat with Pat yesterday, expressing my concerns, hightened by
>the failure to make a quorum last Friday, that the WG need to finish and
>that I could see no end to the steady trickle of error reports on the
>semantics document.
>Pat observed that many of the current difficulties are with the closure
>rules, an informative section of the document, and suggested we could
>move forward with that section removed.  He has prepared such a
>   http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semant_Edit_curt.html
>Pat also informed me he is about to be 'communications challenged' for a
>couple of weeks.
>I'm not sure if Pat is still working on correcting the closure rules.

Yes, he is.

>But even if he were and thought he had a correct set, it would take time
>to verify them and given the history, there has to be a concern that
>further remedial work would be needed.


>I note that the list of changes is also a lot shorter with section 4
>I am leaning towards proceeding with the curtailed document as a
>proposed rec candidate.  I am assuming that removal of an informative
>section should not force a second last call. DanC?   The closure rules
>can always be published separately as a note.  This way we can have a
>proposed rec candidate for review by Friday.

I will be updating the document at that URL until late tomorrow, but
the changes should not be substantial and will be noted in the change

>I'm still concerned about the presence of the LBase form.  I'd like to
>be sure we have got things right, and I'm not sure what argument would
>convince me that the lbase section was correct, given the difficulties
>we have encountered with the closure rules.

The key difference is that the document does not assert that they are
right, except that to the editor's belief they are in correspondence
with the model theory. The appendix is simply a summary of the model
theory in axiomatic form.

>Please let me know what you think.


PS, Brian, I would still like your suggestions about rewording
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@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 15:44:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:23 UTC