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

[2] from RobS

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:44 UTC