- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:05:26 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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 will make this change, and move some of the appendix material to the Note to suit. Ready by later today (Friday) Pat >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 -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Friday, 26 September 2003 10:07:18 UTC