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?


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC