- 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
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