- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 16:14:42 -0600
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Brian_McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>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. 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 Thursday, 6 November 2003 17:14:44 UTC