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

Re: weekly call or agenda items (trivially true stuff)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 07 May 2003 11:43:59 -0500
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1052325839.11680.492.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 07:55, Brian McBride wrote:
> This is the usual weekly call for items for the telecon agenda.
> 
> On my list of possibles I have:
> 
>    Issues xmlsch-03 xmlsch-04 pfps-13
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0368.html
> 
>    DanC-04 add a trivially true predicate

I didn't mean for this to take WG time.

I really do think the danc-04 naming convention
is actively harmful. I ask, again, that you stop
using it (for new issues; don't rename existing
ones).

I didn't mean to raise a new issue.
I meant my "trivially true" suggestion as
a contribution to the existing issue
about making rdfs:comment semantically
vacuous.

Let's see... where is that one... where's the
last call issues list? Ah..
"last call issue list published in html and rdf."
odd that the link text is "html", but no matter...

This one:

  "rdfs:comment semantics"
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horrocks-01

I presumed the recipients of www-rdf-comments
would relate my comment to the existing issue rather
than make a new one.

Hmm... I guess I wasn't paying attention when we agreed to this:

"While the WG is
sympathetic to the need for semantically empty comments, to add a
special syntax for them was considered too much of a change to RDF at
this stage and possibly outside the WG charter."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0111.html


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 12:46:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:28 EDT