- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:03:13 +0000
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 11:44 PM 3/11/02 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote: >Hi Graham, > > >This is fine for me. (I think my original comment has been rather > >overtaken by developments.) > >Sorry, but what developments in particular have you in mind? - my following >of the wg is pretty sporadic, and I'm not sure I'm clear on the reasoning >behind this resolution. The telecon minutes aren't much help : Mainly, developments in my own understanding, deriving in large part from having a formal semantics instead of vague, imprecise language to describe what's going on. Among other things, having the formal semantics provides a framework for entailment test cases to focus the issue, as in this case... >[ > Discussion of this entailment; FrankM proposed that the answer is > NO. Some people are confused or don't care too much about it. > > APPROVED: Answer to above entailment is NO. >] > >Sounds a bit like it was getting close to pub-closing time (globally)... Well, FWIW, I agree with the group's decision on that entailment. Also, there are a number of these decisions where the actual answer usually doesn't matter too much, as long as there is *an* answer. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 05:36:56 UTC