Re: ACTION 2001-10-12#5: frankm respond to gk text

Dan--

In one sense I agree with you:  if we're going to worry about text, we 
ought to be clear what the point of that worrying is (and in fact, as 
noted in the IRC Chat Log, I cited your earlier point to roughly this 
effect during the discussion).  On the other hand, Brian said that the 
text would be cited from the issues list as the resolution of the issue, 
and he's right.  Now technically that's not a spec, and I suppose we can 
continue to refer people to the Model Theory, but I think lots of people 
might understand Graham's text and might not understand the MT (or at 
least not as easily).  In any event, none of this has anything to do 
with breaking the original consensus, as far as I can see.

I suspect we're going to have to say these things in several different 
ways in order to get the points across.  As long as all these ways are 
consistent (and we certainly need to make sure of that), and (taking 
your point again) we don't spend an excessive amount of time doing it, 
that's a good thing, it seems to me.  For instance, I'm writing part of 
the Primer, and Graham's text (suitably modified), would be a nice 
addition there, I think.  So getting WG review of that text (which they 
would have to do anyway) was helpful.  (By the way, do you think the 
Model Theory, and possibly the Primer, are the only official specs in 
which we're going to have to discuss things like anon resources?  That's 
still not clear to me).

--Frank

Dan Connolly wrote:

> Frank Manola wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>We weren't asked to agree
>>to some general notion of consensus on this issue, we were asked (or, at
>>least I thought I was being asked) whether we had any problems with some
>>specific words.
>>
> 
> OK, I'll reiterate: please let's not focus on the details
> of the meeting minutes. They're a means to an end; the
> end product is the spec. (and in some sense, that's only
> a means to and end; the real end is lots of widely
> deployed, interoperable tools and understanding

> 
> If you want to focus on specific words, please focus on
> words from the model theory draft.
> 
> Mr. Chair, please don't put any more proposals before
> the group that are (a) more than a sentence or two, and
> (b) not destined to go right into the spec/test-suite.
> 
> Graham, if you're going to bother changing the wording of
> your proposal, please change it to:
> 
> 	PROPOSED: that the RDF model theory draft
> 	of 25 September 2001
> 	(http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-mt-20010925/)
> 	adequately addresseses the issue
> 	http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875

Received on Sunday, 14 October 2001 16:40:47 UTC