- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:18:41 +0000
- To: Renato Iannella <renato@knowledgeflux.com>, "public-ole-comment@w3.org" <public-ole-comment@w3.org>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>
The only way to reconcile the comments on this point is to plan for a NOTE of the semantics. I'll make that change. The original request came from Axel [1] Phil. [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ole-comment/2015Oct/0000.html On 08/12/2015 10:48, Renato Iannella wrote: > > On 7 Dec 2015, at 7:58 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: > > The current text in the list of deliverables includes: > >> A technology-neutral permissions and obligations information model with formal semantics > > This may be dangerous as part of an official deliverable text. The term “formal semantics” is, in many respect, a very loaded term and may mean the development of some sort of a mathematical model to express the model which can become very complex and difficult to understand. Consider, for example, the [prov formal semantics document](http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-sem-20130430/). I do not think we should put this into a "required" list of deliverables. > > Agree. I think we drop the word “formal” from the title. > > If there is a need from the WG participants for a “formal” model, then that can become a WG NOTE. > > Renato Iannella > Head of Innovation and Emerging Technologies, KnowledgeFlux > Level 7, 100 Edward St, Brisbane 4000 AUSTRALIA +61 4 1313 2206 > > > > > > > > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 12:18:32 UTC