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

RE: datatypes discussion on other lists

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:54:31 +0100
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDAEFKCEAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I have some sympathy with Peter's position, and I am sorry that Brian did not
give us a chance to comment on his text before sending it.

In particular I think the fact that:

Test A*:

   <Jenny> <ageInYears> "10" .
   <John>  <ageInYears> "10" .
   <ageInYears> rdfs:range xsd:decimal .

holds in all cases is relevant and was omitted.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian McBride
> Sent: 11 July 2002 20:04
> To: RDF Core
> Subject: datatypes discussion on other lists
> I have sent, at last, the datatypes message to rdf interest and rdf logic
> and await the explosion.
> I have modified it from the draft approved by the WG in the light of recent
> discussion.  I trust the WG will approve of the modification.
> At the f2f and elsewhere, concern has been raised the we might simply
> repeat the discussion, in all its confusion and volume, that we have had in
> RDFCore, in a wider forum.  It would be a disaster if that were to happen.
> I am not sure what other WG's have done in the past, and would welcome
> guidance from those who have been here before.
> However, I strongly suggest that members of the WG refrain from any form of
> advocacy for their preferred position on the other lists.  We are seeking
> input from the community on this issue, not a debate.
> I recognise that what is advocacy and what is helpful explanation is a
> difficult line to draw.  I am loathe to suggest gagging people, but I also
> suggest that folks leave it to me to answer for the WG on any questions or
> issues that arise on the other lists.  If anyone is dissatisfied with
> anything I say, then raise that with me first and we will correct it.
> Brian
Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 04:54:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:58 UTC