Re: Draft response for CommentResponse:JP-2

On 21 Jan 2011, at 09:24, Andy Seaborne wrote:
[...]
> > My point is, that there might be many use cases where multiple paths don't matter, my slight rewording and moving the sentence about distinct up should only stress that, sure we also cater for those where they don't, but that we explicitly want to cater for both.
> > Does that make sense?
> 
> I do not want to make a judgement importance of one set of cases over
> another.

neither do I, and that was what my rewording tried to emphasize.

> I prefer the current text which discusses the triple pattern / finite
> property path equivalence first which is the fundamental principle.
> Your text pushes that down.

I can live with your version, it was just a suggestion.

> > Perfect! I think we could hint on that in the reply, as it shows that we take his comment serious!
> 
> That is unpublished text and is the point is already in the reply.
> 
> I take all comments seriously.

and I certainly did not indent to imply any other! 
s/"shows that we take his comment serious"/"shows that we take his comment into account in the draft"

To go ahead, how about going with your version and just adding a sentence in the end as follows to stress that last point:

"An implementation is free to implement evaluation in anyway it chooses proved it results in the same answers. The WG felt that using an algorithm was the most helpful way to specify the feature, especially to implementers. We added a respective note in the current Editor's draft in the Definition of the Evaluation of ArbitraryLengthPath."

With that, I'd be fine to send it off!

cheers,
Axel


>         Andy
>

Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 09:54:05 UTC