- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:55:27 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> >My old project manager instincts are to cut right back to the >essentials, but I hear HP and Jos (and I think Pat) prefering option b, >which I consider riskier but acceptable. Does anyone wish to argue >against that? I think it is low-to-zero risk, with the document in its present form. For calibration, I think that our documents are now MUCH more thoroughly debugged than the published XML Schema part 2 documents. BTW, I drafted the _append version before reading all the emails. The document simply makes no mention of completeness, but it would still be low-risk to add 2 sentences like: " We believe that these rules are complete in the following sense: if S rdf(s)-entails E then there is a graph which can be derived from S+the rdf(+rdfs) axiomatic triples by these rules which simply entails E. However, this has not been conclusively established at the time of writing." Note that this does not mention closures, so the question of whether or not they are finite does not come up. This is done in a modified version: http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semant_Edit_appenda.html dated 18a June I will try to propose resolutions for the outstanding semantic issues asap, but I may have to get on a plane soon. 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@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 12:55:30 UTC