W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: addressing requirements around daml:collection (rdfms-seq-representation)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 22 Apr 2002 11:42:10 -0500
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1019493731.4817.476.camel@dirk>
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 20:56, Pat Hayes wrote:
[...]
> >hm... what ever became of "ACTION: 2002-02-15#4 PatH: Send a few
> >paragraphs to the list to address this" --
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476
> >that action isn't mentioned in the next week's minutes.
> 
> God, I HATE looking through old minutes. Hmmm, I had totally 
> forgotten that, I confess. And at this date I have no idea what I was 
> going to say about it. I think it was just going to be a kind of 
> elementary observation that there is no natural way to define 'rest' 
> in an ordinal representation without doing arithmetic.  Nothing deep, 
> Im sure.

Very well.

My thinking on action items is: if nobody else
in the group remembered it in the next meeting (or two or three)
then it must not have been all that important; i.e. my
'what ever became..' question is somewhat rhetorical.
The action item was implicitly withdrawn.

> Pat
> 
> PS in that same minutes I found this, BTW. So why are we still 
> talking about it??
> 
> 19: Issue rdf-containers-otherapproaches
> The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various
> awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design?
> 
> Propose:
> 
>    o   the WG resolves this issue is out of scope for this WG
>        but places the issue on the list of to be considered by a
>        future WG.
> 
> See:
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches
> 
> APPROVED

Well, there's a nearby issue, rdfms-seq-representation that,
for some reason, is still open. I'm not sure if that's on
purpose or not; as I said:

| This seems pretty closely related to
|  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation
| which we decided to close by punting/postponing
| [oops; didn't we? I see it's "currently: for discussion";
| ah... perhaps I'm confusing it with...
| http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches
| which is closed, as of 15Feb.]


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 12:42:06 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:34 EDT