Re: question about normative status of entailment rules

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I noticed that the entailment rules have changed status from informative to
> normative.

Yes.

   I view this as a serious mistake, and will be objecting to this
> change if it survives.

Thank you for the heads up Peter.  As time is short, RDFCore is hoping 
to decide on a second last call this week, could you provide some 
substantantive argument in support of your view.

> 
> In preparation to this objection, I was investigating the deliberations of
> the RDF Core Working Group and could not find any indication that the
> working group did indeed decide to make this change.  I cannot find any
> indicatation that the working group even voted on a resolution that even
> remotely could be considered to approve this change in either the IRC log
> or the minutes or the agenda for the RDF Core Working Group meeting of 27
> June 2003, which is the date that RDF Semantics indicates for approval of
> this far-reaching change.

You are correct that no formal WG decision is recorded.  However, it is 
my current recollection that at the end of the discusion, the WG was 
minded to have the entailment rules be normative and the semantics 
editor updated the semantics document accordingly.

Brian