RE: RDF Issue rdfms-identity-of-statements

At 11:44 PM 3/11/02 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote:
>Hi Graham,
> >This is fine for me.  (I think my original comment has been rather
> >overtaken by developments.)
>Sorry, but what developments in particular have you in mind? - my following
>of the wg is pretty sporadic, and I'm not sure I'm clear on the reasoning
>behind this resolution. The telecon minutes aren't much help :

Mainly, developments in my own understanding, deriving in large part from 
having a formal semantics instead of vague, imprecise language to describe 
what's going on.  Among other things, having the formal semantics provides 
a framework for entailment test cases to focus the issue, as in this case...

>   Discussion of this entailment; FrankM proposed that the answer is
>   NO.  Some people are confused or don't care too much about it.
>   APPROVED: Answer to above entailment is NO.
>Sounds a bit like it was getting close to pub-closing time (globally)...

Well, FWIW, I agree with the group's decision on that entailment.

Also, there are a number of these decisions where the actual answer usually 
doesn't matter too much, as long as there is *an* answer.


Graham Klyne

Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 05:36:56 UTC