- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:12:17 +0100
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat: >>Jeremy Carroll wrote: >>> >>>In the absence of arguments that this change is editorial and not >>>substantive, I ask that the chairs reopen the PR decision, in order >>>to consider the resolution of Herman's last call comments which >>>triggered this change. >> >>As I recall, Pat is travelling in the early part of this week. This >>will hamper clarification of this issue. >> >>The suggestion is that a substantive change, i.e. one visible in a >>test case, has been inadvertently made without consulting the WG. >>If true, that is unfortunate. > > My understanding however is that it is not true, and that as I said, > no test cases are affected. > > Full disclosure: there is a case which COULD have been a test case > but isn't, which would have been affected if had been a test case, > which is > > { } entails { _:x rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .} > > which is not an valid LC2-entailment. That is, the current semantics > requires that some containermembership properties must exist, even if > nobody talks about them. This is indeed right (and nice to see those {} btw) but I was nor sure if my actual code was doing the right thing, but it did, at least we couldn't find a proof thing for _:X rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty . (whereas we could find evidence for rdf:_9270 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty . and for both case nothing else was given) The MT gives a very clear account and that is really valuable! -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 13:12:34 UTC