- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:42:37 -0800
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
What exactly is the intended implication of having the reference be informative? If this implies that Semantics is not a normative part of the overall spec, then I must formally object to this. As I recall, the 2004 specification documents all cross-referred normatively to one another, as a matter of design. Pat On Dec 16, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > On 16 Dec 2013, at 16:32, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: >> Another question.. currently Concepts normatively references Semantics which >> means we have a circular dependency. Is this what we want or shall we >> convert the reference to be informative? >> >> Even though it could be argued either way, I think I would prefer to make it >> informative. Thoughts (or has this already been discussed)? > > +1 to an informative reference. RDF Concepts defines the structure, RDF Semantics defines how to interpret the structure. This seems like the correct layering to me. > > I note that RDF Semantics is only referenced in informative material, so it’s not clear what a normative reference would mean. A normative reference doesn't seem to be necessary to define any of the things that RDF Concepts normatively defines. > > Best, > Richard > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred) phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 03:43:15 UTC