W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: LC Issue timbl-01 choices

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:04:14 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030402164402.0c899968@localhost>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 08:45 01/04/2003 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

[...]


>Yes, the implementors understand and were convinced that it's
>worth implementing.
>
>I think TimBL has raised an interesting question as to whether
>the users understand what they're saying when they use this
>construct.

That question seems separable, in fact I think we did separate it as timbl-02.

It seems a little odd to consider whether to keep bagid when we still have 
the more general question of whether to keep reification at all, timbl-02.

Reviewing the discussion with Tim,  I think the conclusion of his last to me:

[[
Yes... the only logical thing is to remove it, and it would be easier
earlier than later, but would involve of course changing RDF M&S.
]]

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0135.html

got to the point where Tim was suggesting that we remove reification all 
together.  He has not responded to my question:

[[
Might you be persuaded that in these circumstances, the best course of
action is to leave it to a new, fresher WG to consider these issues and
that that WG would be best placed to decide how to move current use to
whatever solution they propose.

In the meantime, the best strategy for the current WG is to reduce the
prominence of the existing vocabulary, whilst at the same time clarifying
its specification for those who have chosen to use it.
]]

Graham/Jeremy: is there any chance you can propose a disposition for this 
for Friday as well.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 11:04:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:50 EDT