- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:52:15 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 05:00, Graham Klyne wrote: > At 20:00 29/09/03 -0500, pat hayes wrote: > >I tend to agree with Peter about the rules being normative, particularly > >as I couldn't find a formal record of that decision either (the best I > >could do was to link to the IRC log). [...] My memory says we decided to make them normative, but my memory isn't very reliable. The minutes corresponding to the 27 June IRC log are http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0025.html and they don't seem to show a decision to make the rules normative. Sigh. [...] > This makes me wonder if, given that there is less implementation experience > of inference based on these formal semantics, it wouldn't be more > appropriate to request the formal semantics go to CR (with informative > rules) rather than PR at this time? I think we've been sufficiently careful to add tests for all the interesting nooks and crannies in the semantics that passing all the tests is quite a bit of implementation experience with the formal semantics as written. Moreover, I maintain that horn rules is a correct implementation strategy, and I consider anything to the contrary a bug. While I'd rather that were stated in so many words in the spec, I'm willing to accept that the burden is on me (and like-minded reviewers) to find any such bugs. I'm fairly confident there aren't any. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 09:52:16 UTC