W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: [closed] issue #pfps-10 untyped literals

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 07:10:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030501.071050.60028233.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: [closed] issue #pfps-10 untyped literals
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:12:28 -0500

> Peter,
> In
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0085.html
> you raised a last call comment on the RDFCore WD's which was recorded as:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-10
> The RDFCore WG has accepted your comment:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0361.html
> and the current editor's draft of the semantics document
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
> now requires that LV is exactly the class extension of I(rdf:Literal) 
> in all RDFS interpretations, and the entailment you mention 
> incorporated into the proof rules.
> Please reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org, 
> indicating whether this decision is acceptable.
> Pat Hayes

This message is somewhat better than a previous one, but it is still
rather difficult to find out just what is going on here.  Pointing to the
appropriate change(s) in the document would help somewhat.

It also does not appear that this message was posted to www-rdf-comments. 
I have added www-rdf-comments to the CC list.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies

PS: Many of my issues with the RDF semantics were known to the RDF Core
Working Group before going into last call.  In my opinion it would
therefore be a very good idea to ensure that all issues with the RDF
semantics and their resolutions have detailed documentation in
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 07:10:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:02 UTC