Re: [closed] pfps-04, pfps-05: dissatisfaction with the entailment rules development

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:18:21 -0500 (EST)
• To: phayes@ihmc.us
• Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20031106.161821.50024731.pfps@research.bell-labs.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.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 16:19:43 UTC