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

Re: more feedback (re-open #rdfms-seq-representation?)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 10:06:35 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021101095314.033ba778@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 00:10 01/11/2002 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

[...]

>Yes, I think we ought to reopen
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation
>
>The new information is: the 31May decision record
>wasn't clear enough to distinguish between positions
>that Pat/Dan/Jeremy/Graham would support and positions
>they wouldn't. Each of us thought we agreed at the time,
>but we discover now (especially when integrating
>this decision with WebOnt, a critical customer)
>that we didn't.
>
>For me, it was a borderline decision to add
>parseType="Collection" to RDF at all... not one that
>I would want to go with over anybody's objection.

I note the irc log shows that it was proposed to add no new semantics to 
cover collections

   http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-05-31.html#T14-45-08

but that no decision was recorded.


Webont asked for this on the grounds they needed the syntax.  We've told 
them we have done it and they have expressed no concerns with our 
solution.  I note that both DanC and Pat are active in webont and their 
difference of view has not surfaced there.  I will be prepared to reopen it 
if WEBONT come back and raise an issue with us.  I don't want us going off 
and removing it urged on by individuals without the consent of the WEBONT 
WG since, they asked for it in the first place.

Brian
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 05:04:05 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:55 EDT