RE: "GRDDL Agents" section, normative security text for review (# issue-conformance-labels)

> >
> > I think this is ambiguous.  It could be saying:
> >
> > Forall ?X, if ?X computes GRDDL results of information 
> resources then 
> > ?X is a GRDDL Agent
> >
> > And therefore, if anything computes any GRDDL result it 
> should conform 
> > the rules in the list that follows.
> >
> > It could be saying:
> >
> > If ?X is a GRDDL agent then ?X computes GRDDL results of 
> information 
> > resources and should conform to the rules in the following list.
> >
> > I think you probably mean the latter.
> 
> Hmm... I think I said what I meant; when elaborated using 
> if/then, it becomes...
>    ?X is a GRDDL Agent if and only if ?X computes GRDDL results
>    of information resources; if ?X is a GRDDL Agent then ?X should...

OK, in that case I guessed wrong about what you meant, evidence that
text is not clear.


[...]

> 
> >  but may be designed not to compute all the GRDDL results 
> of an input 
> > representation.
> 
> As an elaboration of "local configuration," that seems not 
> quite useful without giving an example or otherwise saying 
> *why* it might be designed that way. I'm inclined to let 
> "local configuration"
> stand on its own.

Its not just an issue of local configuration, it may be by design of the
software.  Murray gave a good example.

[...]

> >
> > Or am I just confused?
> 
> I don't see any evidence of confusion;

I misinterpretted the text.

> our stylistic 
> preferences seem to differ, though.

You are the editor.  

Brian

Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 07:56:04 UTC