- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:21:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: danbri@w3.org
- Cc: phayes@ihmc.us, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> Subject: Re: objection to proposed close of pfps-05 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:51:58 -0400 > * pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> [2003-08-14 21:06-0700] > > > > >The current state of affairs with respect to the RDFS entailment rules and > > >the RDFS entailment lemma is not acceptable to me. > > > > > >The RDFS entailment rules are not a complete characterization of > > >rdfs-entailment. > > > > To repeat, the sense of 'complete' which makes this assertion true > > has never been used in any version of the document. You have had > > innumerable opportunities to comment on or object to this design > > before and at LC, so I do not consider that to raise this issue now, > > for the first time, is reasonable or acceptable. From [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0090.html] with emphasis added. > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:19:45 -0500 > From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> > To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org > Subject: Comment on Last Call Working Draft of RDF Semantics document concerning RDFS closure rules ****************************************** > The closure rules for RDFS are incomplete. ****************************************** > For example, > ex:foo ex:prop "a" . > RDFS-entails > ex:foo ex:prop _:x . > _:x rdf:type rdfs:Resource . > However, this does not come out of the RDFS closure rules. > This means that the RDFS entailment lemma is false. > [...] This is thus very much not the first time that I have raised this comment. [...] > Perhaps we could note the objection for the record and move on? > > Dan Yes, that would have been a good idea. peter
Received on Saturday, 23 August 2003 09:02:43 UTC