Re: objection to proposed close of pfps-05

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