W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Cut back RDFCore semantics doc

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:48:14 -0400
Message-ID: <3EEF7E8E.97AE7197@mitre.org>
To: Ramanathan Guha <rguha@us.ibm.com>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

How about if we put some javascript in the Semantics doc so that when
readers get to section 4: "Closure Rules (Informative)" the
"Informative" flashes or changes colors periodically, or big arrows
blink on and off pointing to the word "Informative"?   Or maybe we could
prevent readers from getting access to the Semantics doc unless they
first accept a licensing agreement that consists of something like "I
agree that I understand the difference between normative and informative
text in a W3C specification, and if I henceforth confuse the two, I will
send the W3C my firstborn male child"?  Put some text at the beginning
that says the rules may not be totally correct or something and forget
about it.  Sheesh!

--Frank

Ramanathan Guha wrote:
> 
> Can't we have a non-normative W3C Note that we refer to from the
> normative document?
> 
> guha
> 
>  Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
>  Sent by:                                     To:
>  w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org         w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>                                               cc:
>  06/17/2003 12:06 PM                          Subject:        Re: Cut
>                                       back RDFCore semantics doc
> 
> 
> 
> > removing the closure rules? I'm totally unconvinced
> > and feeling completely lost... (again tears)
> > better later publish an errata!
> 
> I have discussed this issue with HP colleagues and we support Jos's
> position.
> 
> While we obviously should not rule out cutting the closure rules, we
> should be
> convinced that it is necessary to do so
> 
> Given that they are informative I would argue that even if we are not
> 100%
> convinced that they are right it is OK to go to Rec acknowleding the
> possibility of errata.
> 
> I probably would not be prepared to have a second last call just for
> the
> closure rules - but if that became the substance of the issue I would
> want to
> consult with my colleagues.
> 
> Jeremy

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 16:48:49 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:55 EDT