- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:29:33 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: 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 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