W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:10:44 +0100
Message-Id: <4634FAFB-29B5-4915-B3AA-C34DB432B4CF@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: andy.seaborne@hp.com, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On 13 Feb 2006, at 15:22, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> That text (in the definition) was something that the WG made a  
>> decision about.
>>   I don't think I have license to make changes without further a  
>> WG decision
>> (and you weren't there on Tuesday).
>>
>> Dan - can I apply the changes?
>> Or apply them for WG review?
>
> It's been very difficult to get all the interested parties on this
> issue in sync. I'm not inclined to re-consider our 26 Jan decision
> without a really compelling argument that it's broken.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/ 
> att-0298/26-dawg-minutes.html#item04
>
> If this is only an editorial problem, it can get fixed during CR.
>
> A test case showing it's a substantive problem would be a compelling
> argument to re-consider the decision.
>
> Andy, I'd rather you did _not_ change the decisions that we
> agreed on 26 Jan.
>
> Enrico, I hope you find this acceptable.

Not really.
These are editorial problems, that make the current definition

(a) slightly imprecise from the formal point of view:

>>>> 1) missing explicit quantification (some term has not been properly
>>>> introduced before being mentioned: B and BGP')
>>>>
>>>> 2) the notion of "introduced by" should be replaced by the more
>>>> precise "in the range of"

(b) not fully understandable:

>>>> 3) we need to emphasise that G' and B are somehow fixed - so that
>>>> we can ignore mentioning them from now on (as we actually do
>>>> whenever we mention matching in the rest of the document).

I don't see why we want to go public with an imprecise document,  
while we have spotted the imprecision in advance.
Why should we be so rigid for an editorial problem?

cheers
--e.

Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 19:21:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT