- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:45:51 +0300
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>> While we obviously should not rule out cutting the closure rules, >> we should be >> convinced that it is necessary to do so >That is not what your colleague said to me. Brian, I am the HP rep, you are the chair - these are distinct roles, and I intend to continue to represent HP. If you believe that I am failing to do so, may I suggest contacting Martin Merry or Jim Bell in preference to messages to the working group. > I believe Pat is working on two versions of the semantics document. > a) one has the closure rules excised > b) the other has the closure rules moved to an appendix with the > claim of completeness removed. I would prefer to see the claim to completeness weakened e.g. "It is conjectured that these rules are complete." IMO a complete set of rules, in the recommendation is more useful than either an incomplete set of rules or a set of rules not in the recommendation. It is possible that the rules in the current draft are incomplete, and this may become apparant shortly after we go to rec. In such a case I would like to see an erratum with an additional rule (if possible). It is not clear that such an erratum would be justified without some sort of claim to completeness. I am reading the current editors draft at the moment, and will be able to give a more considered opinion once I have finished. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 08:45:58 UTC