W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: a comment on NFC

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:29:18 +0100
Message-ID: <3F82B19E.4010306@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org


Hi Peter,

the RDF Core WG gave further consideration to the issues you raised 
concernng Normal Form C. We also received further input from specialists 
within the I18N WG.

As a result we decided on the 3rd October, to weaken the MUST language to 
SHOULDs.

The changes are detailed in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0053.html

The resolution was:
   To change NFC MUST to SHOULD, contingent on confirmation from I18N
   WG and with some editorial discretion for the editors to take
   advice from peers.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0071.html

We have had confirmation, and the text in the current editors drafts will 
not change before the second last call.
(The links between the documents are still in flux).

There was a knock on change in Semantics see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0063.html


If you wish to see these changes in context see the editors drafts:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/

the most recent version of semantics appears to be:
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_LC2.1_NFC.html


Note that the changes previously indicated concerning datatypes in sections 
  and 5.1 of concepts have been undone as a result.

====

You are currently listed as formally objecting to RDF's treatment of NFC,
with the following message as capturing your concerns:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0003.html


We have made these changes in an effort to respond to that objection.

If you would like to withdraw your formal objection please let us know.

If you wish to maintain this objection you may wish to consider revising 
the rationale.

Sorry for the small amount of time for you to consider this before our 
planned second last call on the 10th October.

If you do nothing, we will retain your objection but note some further 
changes have been made, and that you have not been given adequate time to 
consider them.

As always please send replies to the comments list.

thanks

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 08:33:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:33 GMT