- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:07:10 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Also, there is no real reason why we can't specify one set of semantics and if it doesnt fit some cases thats just tough. These cases have not been specified in sufficient detail in the UCR process for anyone involved to tease out a requirement for anything else for what "compatible" may mean that is different from a valid use of "conformsTo" - though of course such cases may be true. Making semantics so vague it says nothing that supports inferencing is not a useful way forward - specifying a simple semantics that doesnt obviously fit some cases we can't quite nail down what the semantics might be (i.e. can we propose a set of axioms that are true for these cases that also support the key competency questions we have identified about conformance? If so - lets see if that gives us more power and flexibility, if not, then we go with the scope we can understand and if it needs more work to apply to some cases in future so be it.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/844#issuecomment-529348008 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 9 September 2019 08:07:11 UTC