- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:40:02 +0100
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Chris Welty wrote: > > > RIF WG, > > We have been discussing this issue for a few weeks now, and while it is > a small minority who prefers not having rif:subclass in the language, > some probing revealed that some people who have stated their support are > "going along with it" out of indifference or without fully understanding > the issue. I think we need some more community feedback. > > Also, discussion of this issue is delaying the production of a next > public WD, which I would like to release ASAP. > > My proposal is that we publish a WD with the current classification > scheme as it is in the editors draft on the wiki, suitably labeled as > "under discussion" with a specific call for feedback on that proposed > feature of RIF BLD, and a better design rationale description for the > feature, including the pros and cons. > > I would like to call this resolution at tomorrows telecon, if possible, > with actions on perhaps Michael and Dave to draft the pro and con sections. > I think we should resolve the question of whether and why we want to carry a data model at all first. Asking for feedback on the specific case of classification without presenting the rationale for this overall capability or the whole picture of the other things that would come along with it (domain/range stuff) seems unhelpful to me. Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 11:40:29 UTC