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

Re: Fwd: Re: comments on 26 September version of RDF Semantics document

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:00:01 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030930104953.0303c878@127.0.0.1>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

At 20:00 29/09/03 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>I tend to agree with Peter about the rules being normative, particularly 
>as I couldn't find a formal record of that decision either (the best I 
>could do was to link to the IRC log). [...]

Me too.  After reviewing the IRC log [1], My (possibly imperfect) 
recollection was that although DanC raised the matter of making the rules 
normative, we didn't actually make a decision on that particular proposal.

Having read Peter's response [2], particularly his points 1 and 3, I also 
tend to agree with keeping them informative.

OTOH, Dan's argument, IIRC, was that implementers would work from the rules 
anyway, and if there were any divergence it may be that the model theory, 
not the rules, should be fixed up to most usefully serve the 
community.  That would be difficult position to sustain procedurally if the 
rules are only informative.

This makes me wonder if, given that there is less implementation experience 
of inference based on these formal semantics, it wouldn't be more 
appropriate to request the formal semantics go to CR (with informative 
rules) rather than PR at this time?

#g
--

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/27-rdfcore-irc#T15-07-36

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0365.html


At 20:00 29/09/03 -0500, pat hayes wrote:
>I tend to agree with Peter about the rules being normative, particularly 
>as I couldn't find a formal record of that decision either (the best I 
>could do was to link to the IRC log). The only coherent interpretation I 
>can assign to this, on reflection, would be that any other inference 
>engine which worked in some other way would not be conformant, even if it 
>was complete and correct: which is silly.  Maybe y'all could just advise 
>me to make section 7 informative rather than normative? I'd suggest that 
>we do that before LC2, in any case.

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 06:02:42 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 30 September 2003 06:03:07 EDT