- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:23:17 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for the clarifications Ivan. So may I propose the following response to Vladimir? Maybe one of the chairs may want to send it. [[ You make a good point. Unfortunately, RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax is already in the Proposed Recommendation state of the W3C process, and at this point it is no longer possible for the editors to make changes (besides trivial typo/grammar issues). So this change may have to wait for a future update. If this is a showstopper for Ontotext, then technically speaking, as a W3C member, you are entitled to object to the publication of the standard, ie, to record a formal objection. The Ontotext AC can do this by providing a set of changes that they request in order to get the document published, or not to publish the Recommendations at all for some reason. Just as on previous steps, the W3C Director has to decide whether the objection is accepted or overwritten. ]] Best, Richard On 24 Jan 2014, at 16:41, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Hi Richard, all, > > (Sorry to be a bit late in answering, I had some mail issues...) > > On 20 Jan 2014, at 15:41 , Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > >> This is clearly not an editorial change. >> >> A change to a “MAY” statement *is* a change to RDF. > > Agree > >> >> Adding informative text (e.g., in a Note) would be considered a clarification, and hence not a change to the language itself. It would still be more than an editorial fix. >> > > Indeed. At this point, apart from obvious grammatical changes, we should keep away from any change. > >> The AC members are currently reviewing the RDF 1.1 specs and are encouraged to indicate their support (or lack thereof) for sending the documents to REC. Does this process, in theory, still provide Ontotext with an opportunity to object to the current design, request a change, or whatever? Not that we want to encourage such behaviour; it’s just that we should mention all the options provided by the process before we reply that it’s too late to change anything now. >> > > Yes, AC members are entitled to object to the publication of the standard, ie, to record a formal objection. They can do this by providing a set of changes that they request in order to get the document published, or not to publish the Recommendations at all for some reasons. Just as on previous steps, the Director has to decide whether the objection is accepted or overwritten. > > Ivan > >> Best, >> Richard >> >> >> >> On 20 Jan 2014, at 14:21, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: >> >>> On Monday, January 20, 2014 2:53 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>> >>>> We have finalized the text except for clearly editorial fixes; we have >>>> done the testing and gathered reports. Anything that is a visible >>>> change by anyone's reading invalidates that and we have to go round the >>>> cycle from LC again. >>>> >>>> The proposed text is a change to RDF - it moves language tag equality >>>> from the value space to the stored form (it connects the MAY text to >>>> the MUST NOT text). >>> >>> Right. >>> >>> >>>> However good an idea is, it's too late (and I wanted to insist on BCP47 >>>> normalization!). >>> >>> Actually, this is not a new request but a reply to a thread that was started >>> back in March 2013 by Hong Sun: >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Mar/0039.html >>> >>> Perhaps all we have to do is to say we already discussed it!? We could also >>> add a sentence clarifying that implementations do not have to store language >>> tags in normalized form. If we want to go a step further I think we could >>> even modify the MAY statement from >>> >>> Lexical representations of language tags MAY be converted to lower case. >>> >>> to >>> >>> Lexical representations of language tags MAY be converted to lower case >>> or formatted according [BCP47]. >>> >>> MAY statements do not carry much weight as they describe completely optional >>> "features". The statement above just highlights that implementations can >>> legitimately change the lexical representation without affecting the meaning >>> of a statement. I thus do not see this as a change to RDF but a >>> clarification. Does anyone disagree? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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
Received on Sunday, 26 January 2014 14:23:44 UTC