- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:45:59 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
As for all issues, one option for the rdfSemantics issue is to postpone it. I think the fact that the LC design requires redundant answers in some cases is unfortunate, but it has the virtue of an existing spec and multiple interoperating implementations. I was going to say that we have a spec, tests and implementations, but I'm not at all sure that our test harness captures this aspect of the design; I think our tests would say that a minimal answer passes, since the test harness is based on graph matching, and a lean graph matches a redundant graph. I expect that a proposal to postpone this issue will meet with some objections, so any proposal that gets a critical mass with no objections is preferred by W3C process. Meanwhile, I'm trying to keep track of who would support postponing and who would object. While you are under almost no obligation, I would appreciate it if you would "tip your hand" and disclose your position before tomorrow's teleconference. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 16:46:28 UTC