W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: a comment on NFC

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20031007.095633.63796946.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: a comment on NFC
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:29:18 +0100

> Hi Peter,
> [T]he RDF Core WG gave further consideration to the issues you raised 
> concernng Normal Form C. We also received further input from specialists 
> within the I18N WG.
> As a result we decided on the 3rd October, to weaken the MUST language to 
> The changes are detailed in:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0053.html
> The resolution was:
>    To change NFC MUST to SHOULD, contingent on confirmation from I18N
>    WG and with some editorial discretion for the editors to take
>    advice from peers.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0071.html
> We have had confirmation, and the text in the current editors drafts will 
> not change before the second last call.
> (The links between the documents are still in flux).
> There was a knock on change in Semantics see:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0063.html
> If you wish to see these changes in context see the editors drafts:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/
> the most recent version of semantics appears to be:
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_LC2.1_NFC.html
> Note that the changes previously indicated concerning datatypes in sections 
> [???]  and 5.1 of concepts have been undone as a result.
> ====
> You are currently listed as formally objecting to RDF's treatment of NFC,
> with the following message as capturing your concerns:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0003.html
> We have made these changes in an effort to respond to that objection.
> If you would like to withdraw your formal objection please let us know.
> If you wish to maintain this objection you may wish to consider revising 
> the rationale.
> Sorry for the small amount of time for you to consider this before our 
> planned second last call on the 10th October.
> If you do nothing, we will retain your objection but note some further 
> changes have been made, and that you have not been given adequate time to 
> consider them.
> As always please send replies to the comments list.
> thanks
> Jeremy

The intent of the change is sufficiently well described for me to withdraw
my objection.

As there is little time before 10 October, I have only performed a quick
check on the three affected documents, but the changes there appear to be
reasonable.  I'm not quite sure why there is the SHOULD sentence in
Semantics, but I suppose it is harmless.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 10:00:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:04 UTC