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

Re: early uniform normalization RE: concept anchors - RE: Minutes: telecon 2002-11-15

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:44:35 +0000
Message-ID: <3DDD6FE3.5090308@hpl.hp.com>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



Brian McBride wrote:

> At 20:05 21/11/2002 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Over early uniform normalization, I am opposed to doing anything other 
>> than
>> deletion.
> 
> 
> Err, might you share with us why?
> 

I had tried ... I'll try again:
(previous explanation)


 >(Rationale for opposition to non-deletion)
 >RDF M&S has these future references on character normalization, and the
 >future is still not arrived. I think DaveB tells me that future promises
 >shouldn't be in specs; I have come round to that point of view.

Retry.
I support early uniform normalization.
It is about processing and constrains a processing model.
The RDF specs do not have a processing model.
If we wish to have EUN then we either need to invoke some other spec (e.g. 
charmod) or define a processing model in order to constrain it (too much 
like hard work, tail wagging dog).

Another option is to leave a paragraph like the 5.1 text in, and half 
delete it - e.g. make it a note about the future.
This is what happened in M&S and it was, with hindsight, a mistake.

The option of invoking charmod is now dead, so, as far as I am concerned 
the best path is a clean deletion of something that I think I would have 
really preferred to be in.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 18:44:53 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:08 EDT