Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

On 31 Jan 2006, at 18:31, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Let me compare 3 different semantic definitions of e-matching. The  
>> first
>> is "Pat's" definition
>
> For the record, this is the definition that we all agreed on  
> informally after extended email discussions,

For the record:
No. We agreed on the orderedmerge version (I remember a looong phone  
call with you when you agreed on our Nov. 2 document), and you  
volunteered to propose a text. The text that came in at the end was  
your union text, over which we never agreed.

> and which you modified, unilaterally and without discussion,  
> between the final group-CCd email and the telecon vote. If you had  
> suggested it in email, with the justification you propose below, I  
> would have had time to point out the error in your reasoning.

Clearly you don't read email even when you answer to them <http:// 
www.w3.org/mid/p06230902bffc8fc19480@%5B192.168.2.2%5D>:

"""
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:33:08 -0600
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

 >What do you think of our proposal that simplifies the current text
 >by having the union instead of the ordered merge?

Congratulations. I wish I had thought of it myself.

Pat
"""

--e.