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

I abstained on the decision recorded, not least because I thought the rules
should be informative - and that we made the wrong call on horst-01

I am surprised to not see the record reflect a decision to make them
normative, and would welcome the proposed change to label them as
informative.

Jeremy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
> Sent: 30 September 2003 12:00
> To: pat hayes; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Cc: Dan Connolly
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: comments on 26 September version of RDF Semantics
> document
>
>
>
> 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). [...]
>
> Me too.  After reviewing the IRC log [1], My (possibly imperfect)
> recollection was that although DanC raised the matter of making the rules
> normative, we didn't actually make a decision on that particular proposal.
>
> Having read Peter's response [2], particularly his points 1 and 3, I also
> tend to agree with keeping them informative.
>
> OTOH, Dan's argument, IIRC, was that implementers would work from
> the rules
> anyway, and if there were any divergence it may be that the model theory,
> not the rules, should be fixed up to most usefully serve the
> community.  That would be difficult position to sustain
> procedurally if the
> rules are only informative.
>
> 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?
>
> #g
> --
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/27-rdfcore-irc#T15-07-36
>
> [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0365.html


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). The only coherent interpretation I
>can assign to this, on reflection, would be that any other inference
>engine which worked in some other way would not be conformant, even if it
>was complete and correct: which is silly.  Maybe y'all could just advise
>me to make section 7 informative rather than normative? I'd suggest that
>we do that before LC2, in any case.

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 11:42:05 UTC