From: pat hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 08/30/01
>Jim Hendler wrote: > > > any reason this discussion is going on in the joint committee mailing > > list instead of on the www-rdf-logic list? > >Good point. There is a recent msg (Aug 28) by Brian McBride on rdf-logic at >[1], which is an update on the RDF Core activities, and specifically >mentions the cyclicity of the classhierarchy as an open issue. > >If Pat doesn't object, I would like to post my summary of our >discussion in response there. (Various of you told me already they >liked my summary, at >[2]). > >OK with you, Pat (being our contact with RDF Core)? Id rather you didnt at this stage. The RDFCore may well decide tomorrow to agree with DAML and do things right, and there would then be little point in putting this debate out into the world. I think the core WG would feel that its business was being conducted a little too much in public if this was plastered onto rdf-logic at this stage, before it has been able to even discuss its response to the comments from DAML+OIL. Could you at least wait a few days? I will report back to the JC as soon as possible. Thanks for your forbearance. Pat >Frank. > ---- > >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Aug/0084.html >[2] http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/0589.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST