W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

RE: Normative reference from Concepts to Semantics

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:22:39 +0100
To: "'W3C RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01d201cefb2b$10531950$30f94bf0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:06 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2013, at 13:15 , Markus Lanthaler  wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:43 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >> What exactly is the intended implication of having the reference be
> >> informative? If this implies that Semantics is not a normative part of
> >> the overall spec, then I must formally object to this. As I recall, the
> >> 2004 specification documents all cross-referred normatively to one
> >> another, as a matter of design.
> >
> > As Richard already explained, this doesn't affect Semantics at all. It
is
> > just that Semantics is based on Concepts but not vice versa. I think
it's
> > not only right thing to do but also gives as more flexibility in regard
to
> > the W3C process as Concepts can progress even if Semantics is hold back
due
> > to, e.g., a formal objection. Given that the WG is running out of time,
this
> > is a very important positive side effect IMO.
> >
> 
> I do not disagree with your first few sentences, but I would be
> opposed, at this point, going forward to Rec with Concepts without
> Semantics... Let us not go there. If we get a formal objection, we will
> have to deal with them together.

I still hope we won't have to deal with that situation but I'm skeptical.

Making it an informative reference at least gives us the *flexibility* to
decide this within the WG instead of being blocked by the process (without
any options).


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 13:23:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC