- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:40:23 -0500
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Um... can you point out where I agreed to this? Or if a vote was taken and I missed it? I honestly do not see how to make sense of this idea of an 'empty' datatype, I think allowing it is quite unnecessary, is going to achieve nothing but sow widespread confusion, and I would rather not make any such change to the semantics. Pat On Oct 18, 2011, at 12:33 PM, David Wood wrote: > Hi Pat, > > Can you please tell us whether ISSUE-76 [1] can be closed? I think it is now an editorial issue in RDF Semantics. Thanks. > > This completes my action at [2]. > > Regards, > Dave > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/76 > [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/108 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 21:41:07 UTC