W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007


From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:14:30 +0100
Message-ID: <474C3456.1000602@w3.org>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Ivan Herman wrote:
> The niceties of dated vs non-dated URI-s of W3C documents... I must
> admit I did not even realize the XHTML2 group has published a new
> version yesterday.
> Regardless, my statement is still true, namely that the safest bet at
> this moment is to refer to RDFa that is mandated to become a
> Recommendation, it is on the charter of the SWD WG, and there is a
> current official timeline for it. I do not know about the detailed plans
> of the XHTML2. *If* they publish it as a Recommendation before OWL1.1

I should have said: of the CURIE document in the XHTML2 WG. Sorry.


> becomes one, we can always switch to that one if we want; there should
> be no technical difference between the two.
> Ivan
> Michael Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 15:29 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> Just to clarify the current situation:
>>> - The CURIE WD[1] is, well, moribund indeed. It is not clear whether the
>>> XHTML2 WG will ever go down the full Recommendation route with it and,
>>> if yes, when.
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/curie
>> The timeline is confusing things.  Prior to yesterday [1] was
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20070307
>> and now it has been updated to
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126
>> Were your statements intended to apply to the March draft or the Nov 26
>> draft, or is the distinction irrelevant?
>> Thanks,


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 15:14:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC