Re: Normative reference from Concepts to Semantics

On 17 Dec 2013, at 13:15 , Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:43 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> As Richard already explained, this doesn't affect Semantics at all. It is
> just that Semantics is based on Concepts but not vice versa. I think it's
> not only right thing to do but also gives as more flexibility in regard to
> the W3C process as Concepts can progress even if Semantics is hold back due
> to, e.g., a formal objection. Given that the WG is running out of time, this
> is a very important positive side effect IMO.
> 

I do not disagree with your first few sentences, but I would be opposed, at this point, going forward to Rec with Concepts without Semantics... Let us not go there. If we get a formal objection, we will have to deal with them together. 

Sorry...:-)

Ivan

> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
GPG: 0x343F1A3D
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf