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

Re: Last Call: draft-w3c-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-00 ready to submit?

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:51:58 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:31 26/03/2002 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>Hi all,
>Since I haven't gotten any comments the past few days, I was wondering if it
>was alright to submit my most recent draft-draft of the media type
>registration. It'll be published as an IETF Internet-Draft, essentailly an
>IETF work-in-progress working draft.

Aaron, thanks for pushing this forward.

>Brian, since I'd like to label it as coming from the WG, what process should
>I go thru. Do we have to sign off on it at a telecon or can I just send it
>The text copy of the draft is below. The latest copy is always available at:
>     http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/rdf-mediatype.{txt,html,ms,xml}

The security considerations section looks a bit risky and imprecise; a flag 
red enough to attract attention, but having no answers.

[[The rdf:ID and rdf:about attributes can be used to define fragments in an 
RDF document.]]

Is that true?  Hmmm, we said rdf:ID="foo" was equivalent to 
rdf:about="#foo".  Does rdf:ID actually define a fragment in the 
document?  Did we mean that to happen with rdf:about too?

I'd like to see two things:

   o an overview of the ietf process, preferably from someone who has done 
this before.  Are we cooked to start this?

   o Your current draft copied to an archive and review by at least two 
members of the WG.  If we can get volunteers asap, I can put it on the 
agenda for approval this Friday.

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 13:10:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC