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

Re: Closing rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about (was: RDFCore WG minutes for the telecon 2001-10-12)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:54:58 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDMEFNCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

DanC:
> Please see my 11 Oct suggestion to replace it wholesale, which
> was greeted with at least two voices of support:
                                          ^^^^^^^
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0186.html


You use the word 'support' rather more liberally than I would.
The only two other posters in that thread were Pat and Graham, both of whom
expressed reservations about the wholesale replacement but were supportive
about other aspects of your message.

e.g.

Graham in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0428.html
wrote:
[[[
When I agreed to your proposal
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0186.html
I was mainly agreeing with the bit that the model theory should not be
constrained by the current RDF syntax in what it describes:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0193.html
rather then specifically agreeing to your abstract syntax proposal.
]]]

Pat in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0190.html
wrote:
[[[
But this abstract syntax is really just N-triples, and I prefer to
keep the graph as a separate entity.
]]]

Now, obviously the messages can be quoted to indicate where they supported
you, but it wasn't about the thing you highlight.

If it helps clarify I will give a "-1" for N-triples rather than the graph
as the abstract syntax. I find both levels helpful, and would prefer to
retain them both.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 07:00:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:08 EDT