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

RE: Call for Agenda Items for this weeks telecon

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:56:04 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B7887732114404316217CA@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 15 November, 2001 00:04
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Call for Agenda Items for this weeks telecon
> Hi Patrick,
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> >>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion
> >>
> > 
> > Concerning this topic, I think it is important to differentiate
> > between generic statements, statements attributed to some
> > authority, and statements asserted by some authority.
> There is a proposal for closing this issue in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
> I'm not clear what you are saying here.  Are you objecting to 
> the proposal?   If 
> so, please could you make clear your reasons for objecting.

My chief concern is that qualification of statements in general,
which subsumes this issue is cumbersome to do as presently
defined and that even though the particular issue should be
deferred to later and IMO addressed by the definition of a
specialized ontology for qualifying statements according to
particular needs; we may need to consider changes, extensions,
or clarifications to the current model which would make such
solutions easier to achieve.

So, I guess I'm not really objecting to the proposal, and these
concerns about the model are represented in my X proposal and
recent posts, so I retract any implied objection to the

Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 06:56:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:53 UTC