- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:48:48 -0700
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
From: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> >I sometimes think that if I were to lie on the ground and invite you >to walk over me, you would object to the color of my shirt. > >I have provided lots of input, both previously and also in response to the > >request, part of which was to the effect that the request is ill-formed. > > It is not ill-FORMED. It may indeed reflect some background > discussion that you do not like, but then we are not putting the > entire subject up for public debate, only seeking feedback on one key > issue. Well I for one studied the tradeoff carefully (see graph below) and came to the conclusion that I could write a engine that would make the correct entailments for all the cases unless the WG made some really off the wall decision. I also came to the conclusion that I would want the answers to Tests A and Tests D both to be 'yes'. Since that option was not given to me, I ruled my comments (related to there being two different copula in question here: equality and identity, but only one mentioned in the questions) off topic. But it sure did not feel right being presented with two options neither of which was acceptable ... especially since I've been waiting for some resolution to this long debate so that I might implement conforming rdf datatypes in my agent. http://robustai.net/mentography/datatyping_tradeoff.gif I agree with Peter, the question was ill formed. I do object to walking over a body dressed in a shirt that is totally black or totally white ;-( Seth Russell http://robustai.net/sailor/
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 17:49:27 UTC