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
>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
>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.


>Dan Connolly, W3C
>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

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