W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2001

Re: A synthesis for #rdfms-resource-semantics

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 20:43:52 -0400
Message-ID: <3AFF2A48.F828C565@mitre.org>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
A couple of comments on this:

Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 
> Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > The chairs might even want to put this issue aside for
> > a while, until we've closed a few others, lest it
> > should consume all available bandwidth and produce
> > little in the way of results.
> 
> I'm going to have to agree with Dan in this situation. For now, let's use
> the definitions defined by HTTP and the other relevant specs. DanC reviewed
> this in:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0021.html
> 
> These definitions have served us well for a rather long time, and I don't
> think that RDF needs any modifications to these definitions.
> 
> I suggest we use our teleconference time to deal with test cases and their
> dispositions. Other discussions are more appropriately held on the email
> list -- I've found it much more effective.

I fully agree with this idea.  I think we need to get our ideas well
worked out in "working papers" circulated by email, and solidly based on
test cases demonstrating specific issues and requirements, before
spending a lot of teleconference time on them (the issues IMHO are
potentially too complicated to do anything else).  I'm less certain
about how adequate the current definitions are, but that's something to
be worked out in the course of the discussions.

> 
> If people are confused with the definitions currently used the Web
> architecture specs, I suggest they take their questions to a more
> appropriate forum (uri@w3.org comes to mind). Let's keep this list more
> specifically to RDF issues.
> 

The question is whether the current definitions are adequate to deal
with all the distinctions that RDF needs to be able to talk about. 
Hence, I don't think discussing the subject is inappropriate on this
list (we do, after all, have something on our issues list we're trying
to deal with here).  However, it would probably save time to clarify
what those distinctions are separately (in email discussions, as noted
above), and then address whether we can express them adequately using
the existing defintions, and whether we might not need either
clarification of or additions to those definitions.

--Frank

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2001 20:44:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:48 EDT