- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 13:45:34 +0200
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ian Horrock <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
On May 4, 2012, at 13:39 , Bijan Parsia wrote: > On 4 May 2012, at 12:34, Ivan Herman wrote: > [snip] >>> New features are explicitly allowed. So we don't even have to get into what "feature" means. It's explicitly allowed. >> >> Sorry, you are right. But it also says: >> >> "For the fourth class of change (new features), W3C must follow the full process of advancing a technical report to Recommendation." > > As I acknowledged below: > > "Clearly not, afaict. We could do that, of course. We would have to have a nominal LC, CR, and PR, though these are frankly, to my mind, ridiculous." Sorry, missed that. > > But my understanding is that that would be an *edited recommendation*, not a new recommendation. > > I am happy to push toward a 2.1 and I'm also happy to try to add datatypes in a non-Rec way. > > But surely this is a prime example of strong interpretation of the Rules getting in the way of what is a relatively minor fix. > > BTW, Can we add comments to the Functional Syntax as requested? I think that would be useful as well :) Sorry Bijan, I am not sure I understand what you ask. Ivan > >> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#rec-advance >> >> which means going through the whole WD-LC-CR-PR-REC route. > > Sure, but it can be superlightweight. (We could go straight to a short LC. Reasonable CR, then short PR.) The key bit is CR I think...i.e., we'd need to get a couple of implementations on board. But these are not profoundly tricky datatypes. (It's not like adding floats or decimals or rationals or strings). It's mostly a syntax level tweak. > > I think this is a very super scoped change. If we open the door any further, that would be dangerous, I agree. > > Let me put it another way, I think it could be a very superscoped change that nevertheless would be high value. > > Cheers, > Bijan. ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 11:42:59 UTC