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

Re: collecting objections

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:24:13 -0400
Message-ID: <3F79BC3D.5080601@acm.org>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

pat hayes wrote:

>> On 2003-09-27 04:27, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>>>  However, I have to say, looking at the email messages cited,
>>>  particularly from Patrick, it seems that in May, Patrick approved
>>>  strongly of the design where XML literals were syntactically
>>>  distinguished and not considered typed literals; but when I
>>>  re-suggested that we revert to this design in my 'wet fish' message
>>>  after Martin raised this issue - using, I now see, essentially the
>>>  same arguments that Patrick had used (typing and lang tags don't mix:
>>>  XML needs lang tags; ergo, XML literals are not typed) it was Patrick
>>>  who was most vehement in raising objections to it. Funny old world,
>>>  ennit?
>> I have supported numerous proposals over these many months, some
>> which I personally supported, and others which I could merely live
>> with, often motivated by the need to achieve *any* solution
>> which was minimally workable and sufficiently palatable to
>> all interested parties.
>> I've busted my *ass* over the past two years on this, trying
>> hard to offer ideas and alternatives that meet the needs and
>> wants of various individuals and groups while still retaining
>> a generic, scalable, portable, and framework agnostic design.
> We all have thoroughly busted asses, my dear fellow. I am going to have 
> a ritual bonfire of the discs when this is all over and I feel able to 
> purge all the previous copies of all the documents I have written.
>> I refuse to be treated as a scapegoat in this debacle.
> Sorry, I didnt mean to scapegoat you in particular, I was just remarking 
> on a change of heart I hadnt noticed previously.
>> Be cautious in what you infer. Be very cautious, Pat.
> No inference intended. Like Jeremy, and I am sure yourself, I am now 
> totally persuaded by the consensus of my colleagues and will never again 
> differ from any of them on any matter.

This consensus-building sometimes gets a bit tedious though.  It'd 
perhaps be easier if we cultivated what Churchill called the main 
qualification for political office:  "the ability to foretell what is 
going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year...and 
afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."


Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 12:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:08 UTC