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

Re: Next telecon agenda (2003-07-11?): pfps-22/pfps-23

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 02 Jul 2003 18:18:29 +0100
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1057166309.2827.86.camel@dhcp-91-136.hpl.hp.com>

On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 11:36, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I request pfps-22/23 be discussed at the next telecon.

Hmm.  Peter's comments compares statements from sectin 2.6 and section
4.  We could first try:

  - point out the introduction which states that normative statements
are explicitly labelled as such

  - point out that section 2 is not labelled as normative and section 4
is.

  - ask him if that clears up the confusion.  If it does fine, if it
doesn't at least we are down to the wording of section 4.

I can take this if you prefer.

With regard to his question on Owl, you are under no obligation to
review the owl semantics spec.

Brian
> 
> See (in particular [2]):
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0003.html
> -- my proposal to close pfps-22/23
> 
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0006.html
> -- response from Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> 
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0006.html
> -- my message to this list
> 
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0007.html
> -- Jeremy's response to my message
> 
> I think the first point is discussion should be:  do we or do we not 
> attempt to clarify the text here?  Then, if we choose clarification, to 
> discuss the extent of such.
> 
> #g
> 
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 13:19:41 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:41 EDT