- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:28:25 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>, andy.seaborne@hp.com, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Bebee, Bradley R." <BRADLEY.R.BEBEE@saic.com>
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:19:31AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 10:09 -0500, Kendall Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:02:13AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > > How about adding... > > > > > > "The dataset gives the exact graph against which the query is > > > evaluated (no further inference is used to determine the > > > input graph)." > > > > Better: "The dataset gives the precise graph against which the query > > is to be evaluated: inference must not be used to determine or modify > > the input graph." > > That's a misuse of "must not", IMO. We don't write > "the sum of 2 and 2 must be 4"; we just > write "the sum of 2 and 2 is 4". "Must not" expresses the prohibition in perfectly ordinary English. There is no prohibition re: arithmetic. Bad analogy. But I'm not the editor, who's free to use whatever language he prefers. > Also, graphs aren't mutable. Huh? Kendall
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 15:29:58 UTC