- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:33:36 -0500
- 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 UTC