- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:18:21 -0500 (EST)
- To: phayes@ihmc.us
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> Subject: Re: [closed] pfps-04, pfps-05: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:39:35 -0600 > >Well, it appears that there is nothing for me to do, as this thread has > >already been marked as closed. > > The status of this, as i understand it, is that while we have indeed > closed it, we did so under your objection. So my question may have > been better phrased as, can we take it that you (now) find our > response satisfactory, so that we are not obliged to record you as > registering an objection to it? > > Pat Somehow I seem to have a continuing misunderstanding of the process. However, for what it's worth, the proposed post-last-call-2 changes to the RDF Semantics document would make my objections here moot. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 16:19:43 UTC