W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:52:29 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f04bc2b2833180f@[]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Subject: Re: A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:15:40 +0000
>>  Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>  [...]
>>  >
>>  > I, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, a recognized expert in the field of knowledge
>>  > representation, an author of the W3C OWL specification, and a kibbutzer
>>  > (sp?) in the design of the semantics of RDF, do hereby protest against the
>>  > proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping on the grounds that they have
>>  > substantive, noticeable, and negative effects on the design of RDF, as
>>  > evidenced by several of my recent messages to www-rdf-comments@w3.org.
>>  >
>>  > [Does this have to be sent anywhere else to be totally official?]
>>  Hi Peter,
>>  This message is to confirm that I've seen your protest.
>>  I'm currently interpretting it to refer to the substantive change
>>  described in:
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2004JanMar/0015.html
>>  i.e. concerning:
>>  [[
>>  The only substantive aspect of this change which
>>  may effect OWL is that in RDF, D-interpretations would no longer be
>>  required to interpret the class extension of the datatype name as
>>  being identical to the value space of the datatype (instead, it could
>>  be a subset of that class extension.)
>>  ]]
>>  Its important to be clear about what change you are protesting, as there
>>  is another proposal for what I expect to be minor editorial bug fixes
>>  and I want to be clear that you are not protesting about those.
>Are there other changes to entailment being proposed for RDF, even changes
>that do not appear to affect OWL?  I would view any such change in a
>negative way.

Just to clarify: as of my last message, there are no changes to any 
RDF entailments now being proposed. The only change, apart from 
tightening up the wording in places, is that the D-semantic 
conditions now only require that literal values of literals in the 
actual vocabulary are in LV.  This brings the D-semantic conditions 
in line with the other conditions in a way that Herman requested, but 
makes no difference to any any entailments.  The class extension of a 
datatype name is the value space of the datatype.


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 Wednesday, 14 January 2004 13:52:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:04 UTC