W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > July 2017

(wrong string) §5

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 06:06:37 +0200
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <peter.patel-schneider@nuance.com>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>, public-rdf-comments Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <097C221B-C22A-4990-A45C-82386EC80390@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Ok. All things considered, we should leave this as is now, without any further actions.

Ivan

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



> On 30 Jul 2017, at 05:59, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 29, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 29 July 2017 at 23:33, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <peter.patel-schneider@nuance.com> wrote:
>>> I also am having problems elevating a suggestion to slightly modify
>>> explanatory wording to make something that is clear already even more clear to
>>> an erratum, particularly when there is a precise formal definition available
>>> in the same document.
>> 
>> Glancing at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/ ... the mail archives are not overwhelmingly big, and this thread is currently first hit for a search on 'semantics'. I think the point has been made, explored, and archived here, and anyone working on a revision will naturally be scanning the archive for discussion of semantics. I've no objection to linking it from the errata document, but the need seems mostly to make sure this thread gets rediscovered by future spec editors, rather than to issue an urgent clarification for implementors.
> 
> Yes, exactly.
> 
> Pat
> 
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>>> 
>>> peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 07/29/2017 12:24 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Jul 29, 2017, at 12:29 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Pat, Antoine,
>>> >>
>>> >> should I interpret this by saying that the original report should be added to the official errata[1], to be considered by a future Working Group or any other type of refresh of the Recommendations?
>>> >
>>> > Hmm. It hardly amounts to an erratum, more like an editorial suggestion. But if that is the only way to record it, then so be it.
>>> >
>>> > Pat
>>> >
>>> 
>> 
> 

Received on Sunday, 30 July 2017 04:06:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:52 UTC