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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 Nov 2002 08:57:47 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1036162667.11220.35.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 04:06, Brian McBride wrote:
> 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

Well, sorta; I don't recall any particular "here's what we did;
is that OK?" ceremony.

> and they have expressed no concerns with our 
> solution.

Not so...
  "which it seems to me is a bad decision on almost all grounds"
  -- PatH in WebOnt
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0298.html

>  I note that both DanC and Pat are active in webont and their 
> difference of view has not surfaced there.

Again, not so, see 0298.
(I recommend you phrase that as "I haven't seen..."
rather than "it hasn't happened")

>  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.

I'm not asking to remove it; I'm asking to re-consider it; i.e.
to get straight exactly what we're deciding, and to use recent
developments in WebOnt semantics, which we didn't have
when we made our 31May decision, to inform that decision.

> 
> Brian
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 09:57:28 EST

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