[proposed closing: pfps-04]

Peter;

In your comment

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0091.html

archived as pfps-04 and accepted by the WG:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04

you indicated that the closure rules in the LC version of the 
semantics document were incomplete, citing the treatment of language 
tags in XML literals.  Since you made several other comments about 
other aspects of these rules, we took this comment as being made 
about the topic it referred to. Since then, the treatment of this 
topic have changed, as you know, and XML literals are no longer 
allowed to have language tags, so the comment in its original form 
has become moot, or is now solved, depending on your point of view.

When we formally asked you to acknowledge this, your response was a 
claim that your original comment was meant in much more open-ended 
way, to refer to the completeness of the entire rule set. This is not 
what we understood it to mean when we archived it, but nevertheless, 
in our response we did indicate that the rule set is indeed complete 
(in the sense stated in the text) and referred you to the proof in 
the document. Your response to this

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0178.html

seems to have enlarged the topic still further, to be a kind of 
general complaint about the style of the document and the way that 
the rule sets are stated. I have replied to you on this general 
issue; it may be that we simply disagree about stylistic matters; but 
in any case, I do not feel that the discussion at this stage is 
concerned with the topic of the original comment which was accepted 
by the WG. I note that in your most recent message cited above you 
use 'incomplete' apparently in a non-technical sense; and that the 
property of the lemmas which incurs your "deep dissatisfaction"  - 
that they operate by reducing vocabulary entailment to simple 
entailment - has been present since the very first draft of the 
semantics document, and is stated explicitly in the test, but has 
never been remarked on previously: in particular, none of the 
comments on the LC version of the semantics document referred to this 
negatively. I also note that this style of rules has been used 
directly by implementors apparently with reasonable success with 
graphs of up to O(10|6) nodes.

As the formal process is now very late, I must ask you to please 
indicate whether the changes to the document mentioned in earlier 
emails are an acceptable response *to the point you raised in your 
original comment*, broadly construed: viz. the incompleteness of the 
RDF closure rules and the treatment of language tags in RDF XML 
literals. This would not, of course, require you to register your 
satisfaction with every aspect of the document, but it will enable us 
to proceed with the W3C processes as far as this particular issue is 
concerned.

Please Cc your reply to rdf-comments.

Thanks.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Sunday, 10 August 2003 00:26:02 UTC