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 12:22:27 -0500
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1064942546.2694.599.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 09:27, Brian McBride wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 05:00, Graham Klyne wrote:
> [...]
> > 
> > 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,
> Can I take that as an indication that you will not oppose making the 
> entailment rules non-normative?

Er... be careful what you ask for.

If you put the question (again), I may very well take a strong
stand in favor of making them normative.

So don't do that. ;-)

The record doesn't compel the editor to make them normative.

The record apparently disagrees with the memory of serveral of us,
but all of us had a chance (and an obligation) to correct
the record and we did not.

I trust the editors (both the series editor and the
semantics editor) to do something reasonable.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 13:22:28 UTC

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