- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:42:49 -0400
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
* Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-09-25 18:16+0100] > > Two of Peter's objections concern the translation to LBase. I'm > wondering whether we might defuse these objections by replacing the > LBase appendix with a suitably worded informative reference to the LBase > note, e.g. > > [[ > An alternative formulation of the semantics of RDF(S) in the form of > axioms for the langauge LBase can be found in the LBase specification > [ref to lbase note]. > ]] I support this. While I'm an LBase fan, I could live with such a repartitioning in the interests of finishing our work. Dan > > Brian > > Brian McBride wrote: > > > >Peter has clarified [1] the status of some of the comments he has made > >on the LC semantics document: > > > >pfps-02 - translation to lbase - pfps notes the ball is in our court. > > > >pfps-03 - translation to lbase - pfps just doesn't see the need for > >lbase in the document > > > >pfps-04 - rdf closure rules - pfps wants a stronger notion of > >completeness of the closure rules > > > >pfps-05 - rdfs closure rules - again pfps wants a stronger notion of > >completeness of the the closure rules > > > >pfps-06 - xml literals and LV - it is possible the latest docs fix this > >and we have not pointed this out to pfps. > > > >Brian > > > >[1] > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0354.html
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 13:42:49 UTC