- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 21:26:00 -0700
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
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