W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Fwd: Re: comments on 26 September version of RDF Semantics document

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
Message-Id: <1064929935.2694.489.camel@dirk.dm93.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
and they don't seem to show a decision to make the rules normative.


> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:25 UTC