- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:09:18 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
The requirement I suggested has gotten a certain amount of support... > > Seems good to me. > > To me too, very much indeed! meanwhile, there are outstanding arguments against, from minor wording issues[1] to the question of whether turing-equivalence is really a relevant requirement at all[2]. If my suggestion had gone thru without much argument, I wouldn't have a problem being both the advocate and the chair. But now that there is non-trivial argument, I'm less likely to persue it actively. Anybody who thinks this is worth persuing will please suggest wording that they think will gain consensus. [1] from JimH http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0089.html [2] from RobS http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0086.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 11:13:06 UTC