- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:52:24 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Apr 12, 2005, at 9:46 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 21:03 -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> On Apr 12, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: >> >>> In post-telcon discussion, I told Andy that I'd answered many of the >>> comments, and I'd tell him which ones I have not answered. So here's >>> a >>> list, in roughly newest-first order, back to about 23 March. I >>> presume >>> the 31 March >> [snip] >> >> I'm v. overtired, but I've seen no mention of the many issues I've >> raised with regard to the formal bits, including the fact that I >> believe, at the moment, that any bnodes in the query graph will make >> the query fail. > > My message was about comments from outside the WG. You're > inside the WG. Oh yeah, I forget :) >> Are these all considered editorial? If so, I'd like some mention of >> that fact, and an indication that they've been dispatched to the >> editors. > > Your comments are on the editors' todo list... > > "EP and AFS ack daveb's comments and bijan's" > -- http://www.w3.org/2005/04/12-dawg-irc > > We didn't discuss them in substance on the teleconference, but > that doesn't mean I think they're strictly editorial. I'll keep > an eye out for things that are substantive and conflict with earlier > decisions, and schedule discussion of those. Ok. If I have some notice, I can prioritize attending such a telecon to discuss them. > For things that the WG hasn't decided, even if they're substantive, > the editors are free to incorporate design changes. Oh. Hmm. Interesting. Ok, that's different than other groups I've worked with. Cool. >> I would also like to know the normative status of various bits of the >> spec. Which trumps, definitions or main body text? > > The goal is that they're consistent. If they conflict, there's > a bug. I'm disinclined to say, as a matter of policy, where > the bug is. Hmm. I prefer one specification, not two, if possible. I would prefer the formal stuff to trump (e.g., the grammar should trump examples or prose). Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 01:52:33 UTC