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

Re: ACTION 2001-10-12#5: frankm respond to gk text

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:33:36 -0500
Message-ID: <3BC87AF0.6E4295D@w3.org>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Frank Manola wrote:
[...]
> We weren't asked to agree
> to some general notion of consensus on this issue, we were asked (or, at
> least I thought I was being asked) whether we had any problems with some
> specific words.

OK, I'll reiterate: please let's not focus on the details
of the meeting minutes. They're a means to an end; the
end product is the spec. (and in some sense, that's only
a means to and end; the real end is lots of widely
deployed, interoperable tools and understanding.)

If you want to focus on specific words, please focus on
words from the model theory draft.

Mr. Chair, please don't put any more proposals before
the group that are (a) more than a sentence or two, and
(b) not destined to go right into the spec/test-suite.

Graham, if you're going to bother changing the wording of
your proposal, please change it to:

	PROPOSED: that the RDF model theory draft
	of 25 September 2001
	(http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-mt-20010925/)
	adequately addresseses the issue
	http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 13 October 2001 13:34:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:02 EDT