Re: "do not occur" from Alan Ruttenberg on 2009-06-03 (public-rdf-text@w3.org from April to June 2009)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:25:21 -0400
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "sandro@w3.org" <sandro@w3.org>, "public-rdf-text@w3.org" <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0906030825u15b65afao6518f4d9337b66c0@mail.gmail.com>

> My problem is that Option 1 [1] seems to signal that the sheer existence of
> such data invalidates the spec. That is actually why I think Option 2 is
> sufficient/better, as it confines that effects just to anybody
> who does care about rdf:PlainLiteral (and thus OWL2 and RIF who are
> referring to it.

I do understand your issue with the wording. Would it help to change
the "do" to "will" or "would" to further clarify that this sentence is
a consequence of the previous?

-Alan

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 15:26:31 UTC