Re: Normative reference from Concepts to Semantics

On Dec 17, 2013, at 08:05, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> On 17 Dec 2013, at 13:15 , Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> 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. 

+1 Ivan.  Concepts and Semantics are our core documents and must be treated as an inseparable whole.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



> 
> Sorry...:-)
> 
> Ivan
> 
>> 
>> --
>> Markus Lanthaler
>> @markuslanthaler
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C 
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
> 
> 
> 
> 
>