- From: bertvannuffelen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:26:00 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I understand. Now I become philosophical: it is interesting to see that there is a very strict statement in the human readable definition, but that this cannot be translated in a machine readable form without the feeling that it would constrain the usage of the term more than the human readable definition is intends. It seems that we encounter here in a knowledge representation challenge: we agree with an intention but we cannot agree on the formal representation. So how do I can proof conformance in this case? As I wrote, this answer is pure for the joy of the discussion. The original question has been answered. -- GitHub Notification of comment by bertvannuffelen Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1255#issuecomment-696002053 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 21 September 2020 09:26:01 UTC