- From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:09:13 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Brian, See my comments below for each message that you mention. >Herman, > >First of all thank you for the effort and exemplary attention to detail >you have put into the review of the RDFCore semantics and other documents. > >In the course of your review you have made a number of comments, including: > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0131.html OK >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0117.html There is one point about which I have just sent a new message. >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0112.html OK However, Pat sent a second reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0132.html indicating that he did an uniformization operation on all entailment rules tables. This is a textually large change on a very important part of the text. It might be wise if other people look at it as well. >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0102.html The reply made by Pat to fix the proof of the rdfs entailment lemma helps a lot, but there remains a point about which I have just sent a new message. >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0052.html This can be viewed as being earlier in the same line as 102, so see my previous comment. > >to which Pat has variously responded and updated the semantics document >as in the current editors WD: > >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/ > >Can you reply to this message please, copy www-rdf-comments@w3.org, to >confirm that your comments have been satisfactorily addressed. > >Brian > > > Herman >
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 09:10:01 UTC