W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: what to make external (ISSUE-78)

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:23:23 -0400
Message-ID: <48EB9B0B.9020706@gmail.com>
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>



Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:34:47 -0400
> Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> At the F2F we had a lengthy but ultimately inconclusive discussion on what to 
>> allow in an external call:
>>
>> 1) ATOM
>> 2) ATOMIC
>> 3) ATOM | FRAME
>>
>> In a straw poll, one person objected to each choice, and there were 3, 6, and 2 
>> people resp. who preferred each choice.
> 
> I remember that csma did retract his objections to (3).

No, it was Axel who objected to (3).  Csma agreed that we could remove "at risk" 
on external frames (which was not really an objection).

>> While more people prefer choice 2, it would require re-doing last call.  1&3 
>> would not, as 1 is covered by external frames being at-risk, and 3 is the way 
>> the spec reads now.
> 
> I think we should do what is right and the LC consideration is not very
> important, if the change is relatively simple (which is what will be in this
> case).

The LC consideration *is* important.  We lose a bit of credibility if we redo 
last call.

> I think the right thing to do is Atomic-Equal|Frame

</chair>
So far each time we've discussed it a new alternative has come forth! I'm 
definitely leaning toward Jos' position - the right thing is to keep it simple 
and go with External(ATOM)
<chair>

> Why minus Equal? In principle equality does not matter here, but one should
> realize that External(a=b) does not imply a=b. So, I am afraid that some people
> will be confused. But maybe this is a non-issue.
> 
> I think the LC thing will need to be redone anyway, because of the problem with
> the External primitive, which we discussed: it should really have the remote
> site's IRI as an additional argument.

This is not a good reason to retract last call - you are basically proposing to 
add a feature to BLD.  We should redo last call to fix a bug, not to add features.

-Chris

> 
> 
> 	--michael  
> 
> 
>> Let's try and come to some sort of closure by email.
>>
> 

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 17:25:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:55 GMT