Re: rdfSemantics null hypothesis: punt/postpone

>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

I think one can make out a case that this is not altogether a bad 
thing, but I concede it will be a controversial case.

>, 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

I can't imagine why you would think so :-)

>, 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.
>

I would personally be quite happy to postpone, yes. But I also think 
that we can do slightly better, with a little patience.

Pat


>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 21:29:44 UTC