- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:20:32 -0600
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Some of the comments seem to me to be editorial, some I have already responded to by (suggested) changes to the text of the document, and some are larger issues requiring discussion (IMO). This message summarizes my take on which is which. The latest editors draft can be found at http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html it is in a slightly scruffy state just at present, in places. The changes from the last call are linked to a discussion section. horrocks-01 requires discussion. Details later. pan-01 and qu-03 should be merged, IMO, into a single issue which requires discussion. Details later. pfps-01 requires discussion. Details later. pfps-02 is editorial; I will undertake to correct the Lbase translations once the model theory is fully stable in all its details. The intended purpose of the appendix is to be an informative summary of the MT in any case. pfps-03 I propose to simply reject, as a statement of opinion with which I do not agree, concerning an informative part of the document. pfps-04 , -05, -06 and -07 and -10 are editorial. Most of them correctly locate bugs or infelicities. The required corrections have been made in the editor's draft. So far nobody has objected to these, but take a look. pfps-08 is a difference of opinion between Peter and myself about the appropriate semantics for rdf:XMLLiteral. The difference only becomes visible when one gets to OWL-Full expressivity. I have made editorial changes to clarify the point, but have not changed the content of the document. pfps-09 is editorial, and I have made appropriate changes to the relevant section. This change was discussed somewhat already within the WG, and Patrick had some objections, but we have talked those through and he is willing to let the changes stand. Note, these changes do not affect any entailments. pfps-21 is editorial. I have purged the term 'namespace' from the document. timbl-21 requires discussion. qu-01 looks editorial to me, but it may impact test cases, so I havnt made the relevant changes yet. Discussion? qu-02 seems out of place to me since RDF does not have the notion of functional relation. I have had some email correspondence with Qu about this, and he wants it discussed. I would be unhappy if the RDF semantics imposed semantic conditions which could not be reflected in any RDF entailments, on general methodological grounds. Discussion? qu-03 should be merged with pan-01, see above. Reagle has withdrawn reagle-03. More details later about the 'big' issues. 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 Tuesday, 11 March 2003 17:20:22 UTC