W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: suggested wording for removing weasels from MT

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 22 Apr 2002 17:27:19 -0500
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1019514441.5164.1112.camel@dirk>
On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 16:58, Pat Hayes wrote:
[...]
> In practice, this assumption may need be modified somewhat.
[...]

> OK ??

no.


> This would be the only mention of 'unasserted' triples in the 
> document, and the whole issue of what counts as an unasserted or dark 
> triple would be relegated to some other domain of consideration, 
> which might be called the operational deployment of RDF in some 
> larger context.

i.e. it's a "hook".

My engineering experience says: don't put
hooks in until you have tested at least two ways to exploit
the hook and be sure it's of the right size and shape.

W3C process calls for implementation of whatever features
are in a spec before granting Proposed Recommendation status.

We have (or at least: I have) become very aware of
the trick where, when groups can't come to consensus,
they put in a hook so that everybody can be happy; but
then they never test the hook, and it just becomes
an interoperability nightmare, with various implementors
ascribing various meaning to it.

If the hook stays in, I'll be sure to look in
our request for Proposed Rec status for evidence
of interoperable implementations.

I'd really rather just take it out until we're more
clear about how to use the hook.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 18:27:15 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:34 EDT