Re: [closed] pfps-04, pfps-05: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development

>From: pat hayes <>
>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.



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

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 17:14:44 UTC