> On 15 Dec 2015, at 13:18, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > > The only way to reconcile the comments on this point is to plan for a NOTE of the semantics. I'll make that change. I am fine with a note. Ivan > > The original request came from Axel [1] > > Phil. > > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ole-comment/2015Oct/0000.html > > On 08/12/2015 10:48, Renato Iannella wrote: >> >> On 7 Dec 2015, at 7:58 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: >> >> The current text in the list of deliverables includes: >> >>> A technology-neutral permissions and obligations information model with formal semantics >> >> This may be dangerous as part of an official deliverable text. The term “formal semantics” is, in many respect, a very loaded term and may mean the development of some sort of a mathematical model to express the model which can become very complex and difficult to understand. Consider, for example, the [prov formal semantics document](http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/). I do not think we should put this into a "required" list of deliverables. >> >> Agree. I think we drop the word “formal” from the title. >> >> If there is a need from the WG participants for a “formal” model, then that can become a WG NOTE. >> >> Renato Iannella >> Head of Innovation and Emerging Technologies, KnowledgeFlux >> Level 7, 100 Edward St, Brisbane 4000 AUSTRALIA +61 4 1313 2206 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > > > Phil Archer > W3C Data Activity Lead > http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ > > http://philarcher.org > +44 (0)7887 767755 > @philarcher1 ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 12:21:30 UTC