- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 21:38:45 -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/0090.html archived as pfps-05 and accepted by the WG: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05 you indicated that the closure rules for RDFS in the LC version of the semantics document were incomplete, giving an example inference. The WG accepted this comment and made various changes to the RDFS (and other) rules, and indeed to the RDFS semantics, in order to establish completeness of a relatively simple rule set for RDFS. You noted that a graph could be RDFS-inconsistent by virtue of the XML datatyping implicit in RDF, and we made further modifications to handle this case. Your next response, however http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0178.html seems to have enlarged the topic 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*, viz. the incompleteness, in the sense stated in the document, of the RDFS closure rules (now called entailment rules). 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 00:38:46 UTC