- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:14:08 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: pfps-04 Date: 21 Jul 2003 14:22:45 +0100 > Peter, > > with reference to your comment recorded as > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04 > > the RDFCore WG has resolved to accept your comment. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0173.html > > As you know, there have been extensive modifications to the RDF > entailment rules since your comment was written > > The current editor's draft, which is now stable enough to review, > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/ > > now contains a version of the RDF entailment rules which we believe > corresponds directly to the RDF semantic conditions in the sense > described. You can check the proof contained in the specification. > > Please reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org, > indicating whether this response adequately addresses your comment. > > Brian There is still a mismatch between the RDF Entailment Rules, which, if complete, determine that XML Literals are not the same as strings, and the RDF model theory, which is stated to be ``agnostic'' on this issue. [Usual disclaimer about other problems.] peter
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 13:15:43 UTC