- From: Ramanathan Guha <rguha@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:57:40 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Me too. guha Dan Brickley wrote: > * 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 13:58:43 UTC