- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:03:29 -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: Re: pfps-05 RDFS closure rules Date: 28 Jul 2003 17:37:07 +0100 > On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 16:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > [...] > > > Unfortunately, this document still has problems with the RDF and RDFS > > entailment rules. The problems are less critical because the status of the > > RDFS entailment rules have been further downgraded. > > > > Currently the document states ``This terminology is agnostic as to whether > > XML data is considered to be identical to a character string'' (Section > > 3). It also states that ``The document also describes complete sets of > > inference rules corresponding to the semantics de[s]cribed in the text'' > > (Section 0.1). > > > > These two statements are mutually inconsistent. Because of the rigid > > nature of untyped literals and XML literals in rdf-interpretations, a > > complete set of inference rules for rdf-interpretations will of necessity > > determine whether an RDF XML literal is a string or not. > > Oops - sorry Peter, I should have updated the ED's draft. Now done: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/ > > The text concerning the denotation of XML literals has been modified and > I believe should address your concern. > > Are we done on this one? > > Brian No. I recently reviewed a version of this document and found a lot of problems. The current version has remaining problems, including incorrect pointers and an incomplete change list. I'm not prepared to yet again review the document until a version with correct pointers and a change list from the version that I recently reviewed is available. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent Technologies
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 13:04:59 UTC