- From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:56:12 -0400
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFE2FC78BB.7EB0DC55-ON85257BF1.0045E06E-85257BF1.0047113F@us.ibm.com>
> 5.2.6 - rdf > +0: as 4.2.2 states (normatively) that "the LDPR is typically the > subject of most triples [of its representation]", it is good to > specify (also normatively) that LDPC are an exception to that rule > -- an LDP client should not expect the description of an LDPC to > only describe the LDPC. > +0: as 4.2.2 states (normatively) that "the LDPR is typically the Maybe I'm reading 4.2.2 differently then; I certainly have the ability to read narrowly ;-) 1: "typically" occurs in a sentence containing zero 2119 keywords, which leads me to think that sentence is incapable of placing any normative requirements on anything. 2: "typically" itself signals to me that, even if this sentence were normative, it would not be MUST-strength and therefore it would not give clients anything new to *rely* on. If others are interpreting the second sentence of 4.2.2 as normative, we probably have another issue to resolve; and as you'd no doubt guess from the text above, I'd likely propose making it non-normative in a more visibly recognizable way. wrt 5.2.6, I think you're correct that its presence is a good foil to 4.2.2. It's a good demonstration of why I was careful to say we'd keep any text we changed to non-normative. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 12:56:44 UTC