W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Proposal: change following to informative - 5.2.6 thread

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:44 UTC