Matched/unmatched concepts in Intent Dictionaries

[dginev]

This is a rebased version of the original PR, see that link for discussion.

The current branch has an additional (optionally) modifier, for extra clarity.

[davidcarlisle]

This PR is, as stated, a rebase of brucemiller#1 as such it was the main subject of discussion in the WG call on 2024-10-31. The overwhelming consensus at that meeting was to merge PR #513 without accepting your PR which would modify the main PR. The technical arguments on why this PR is unworkable are given in the original PR and don't need to be repeated here.

It's reasonable to move the PR here so your suggestion is logged at the W3C github, but it should be closed with no action to be in line with the decisions taken at the math WG meeting..

[NSoiffer]

There's some wording here I'm not a fan of, but I'm also not a fan of some of the current wording. I'll add an agenda item about the current text and possible changes.

[dginev]

git note: the PR is now rebased to the latest main branch.

[davidcarlisle]

This was discussed again on the call of 2024-11-07, there was no support for adding a new matched/unmatched classification and the WG agreed to close this PR however encourage @dginev and @polx to bring forward another PR clarifying that the reference to concept dictionary in 5.4 is to the term defined in 5.2 which is an abstract mapping with no requirement on any data structure in the implementation.

[dginev]

To re-clarify: The vote (an hour ago) was to close this PR and have a follow-up PR by me and @polx trying to prepare some text which builds upon group consensus.

The one technical restriction I consented to for the next PR (which was articulated by @NSoiffer at the meeting) was that we will not disturb the central definitions, but clarify around them. Hopefully that's doable.

The vote today was also a "no objection" vote, in that the WG participants did not voice any comment about performing the PR substitution. The one post-vote comment received in the zoom chat was a procedural question whether closing this PR achieves anything material.

Please don't overextend the resolution and thank you for stating a clear preference.