ISSUE-1: is it necessary to agree upon the semantics in advance?
advsemantics
is it necessary to agree upon the semantics in advance?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Interoperability
- Raised by:
- Owen Ambur
- Opened on:
- 2009-03-06
- Description:
- is it necessary to agree upon the semantics in advance? if so, until what extent?
in relation to http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/Group/docs/note#Semantics - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- [minutes] eGov IG call, 29 April 2009 (from josema@w3.org on 2009-04-29)
- Re: new draft of Interoperability section (from josema@w3.org on 2009-04-24)
- new draft of Interoperability section (from josema@w3.org on 2009-04-24)
- RE: semantics -- Re: Group Note FPWD is done (from richard.murphy@gsa.gov on 2009-03-06)
- RE: semantics -- Re: Group Note FPWD is done (from Owen.Ambur@verizon.net on 2009-03-06)
- semantics -- Re: Group Note FPWD is done (from josema@w3.org on 2009-03-06)
- ISSUE-1 (advsemantics): is it necessary to agree upon the semantics in advance? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2009-03-06)
Related notes:
Agreement on that it's not a "must" but a "helps". Text added:
"Semantic agreement in advance facilitates all exchanging parties to have a common understanding of the meaning of the data exchanged"
ISSUE closed
[josema]: Agreement on that it's not a "must" but a "helps". Text added:
29 Apr 2009, 16:35:17[josema]: Agreement on that it's not a "must" but a "helps". Text added:
29 Apr 2009, 16:36:14Display change log
