- From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:54:29 -0000
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
> > > > I think this is ambiguous. It could be saying: > > > > Forall ?X, if ?X computes GRDDL results of information > resources then > > ?X is a GRDDL Agent > > > > And therefore, if anything computes any GRDDL result it > should conform > > the rules in the list that follows. > > > > It could be saying: > > > > If ?X is a GRDDL agent then ?X computes GRDDL results of > information > > resources and should conform to the rules in the following list. > > > > I think you probably mean the latter. > > Hmm... I think I said what I meant; when elaborated using > if/then, it becomes... > ?X is a GRDDL Agent if and only if ?X computes GRDDL results > of information resources; if ?X is a GRDDL Agent then ?X should... OK, in that case I guessed wrong about what you meant, evidence that text is not clear. [...] > > > but may be designed not to compute all the GRDDL results > of an input > > representation. > > As an elaboration of "local configuration," that seems not > quite useful without giving an example or otherwise saying > *why* it might be designed that way. I'm inclined to let > "local configuration" > stand on its own. Its not just an issue of local configuration, it may be by design of the software. Murray gave a good example. [...] > > > > Or am I just confused? > > I don't see any evidence of confusion; I misinterpretted the text. > our stylistic > preferences seem to differ, though. You are the editor. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 07:56:04 UTC