W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Limited complexity requirement?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:09:18 -0500
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1090854558.314.305.camel@dirk>

The requirement I suggested has gotten a certain amount of support...

> > Seems good to me.
> 
> To me too, very much indeed!

meanwhile, there are outstanding arguments against, from minor
wording issues[1] to the question of whether turing-equivalence
is really a relevant requirement at all[2].

If my suggestion had gone thru without much argument, I wouldn't
have a problem being both the advocate and the chair. But now
that there is non-trivial argument, I'm less likely to persue
it actively.

Anybody who thinks this is worth persuing will please suggest
wording that they think will gain consensus.

[1] from JimH
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0089.html

[2] from RobS
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0086.html


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 11:13:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT