Re: Proposal to add a sentence to S&AS wrote:

>    "For each pair <E,d> in D, it is assumed that 
>     SI(E)=d and that CEXTI(d)=V(d)."

A question, and then comment:
Qu: is this change designed to work with your proposed changes to RDF 
semantics or to compensate if those changes do not get approved by RDF 
Core? (I note you say that it is harmless in either case - just as a member 
of both groups should I be seeking to vote for both this change and the 
other changes or only the RDF core changes?)

This looks harmless enough, but I am increasingly worried that the possible 
change to the PR words of RDF Semantics are not going to have sufficient 
review (and any consequential changes in OWL Semantics).

I am currently leaning towards voting against any such proposal on those 
grounds (on both WebOnt and RDFCore). I have informally found support from 
HP colleagues for such a position. Any such vote against should be seen as 
a vote *for* the PR documents.

I do not think the problems will lead to interoperability errors, and so 
are not *critical* before publishing rec.

Without adequate review, I would prefer to take these issues later, i.e. a 
preparedness to create an erratum if necessary.

Of course, if we see a concrete proposal for change, and there is adequate 
review (e.g. from Pat,  Herman and Ian or Peter) and I have a short time to 
review it (ideally with the HP implementors) then my concerns would be 


Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 12:49:21 UTC