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

Re: Issue #rdf-containers-otherapproaches

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 19 Sep 2002 12:39:48 -0500
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1032457188.2992.4250.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 10:51, Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> That's fine with me.

Umm...

> At 03:33 PM 9/19/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> >At 13:38 18/09/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
> >>Brian,
> >>
> >>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches
> >>
> >>Since this issue was closed as "this issue is out of scope for this WG" I 
> >>note that we have since decided to include a list facility along the 
> >>lines suggested:
> >>
> >>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation
> >>
> >>Should first issue resolution be updated?

Yes, please. I keep looking under otherapproaches for
the container stuff. So do other folks. The WebOnt
chairs almost got all confused cuz it wasn't there.

Just a "see also" or "related issues" thingy would do.

Hmm... the see also is already there. Maybe put it first?

> >I've been thinking not.  We decided to include support for a 
> >daml:collection like list structure.  The question of alternative designs 
> >for contains is more general.  A future WG may consider this more general 
> >question and conclude that with parseType="Collection" no more is needed, 
> >or they may conclude otherwise.  That just seems like territory we have 
> >decided not to consider and in the interests of getting done I'm inclined 
> >to leave it that way.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >Brian
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 13:41:42 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:01 EDT