W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Heads up: RFC2996bis, possible problem for RDF

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:31:29 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040219112510.02dc1798@127.0.0.1>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 10:51 19/02/04 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>>I agree with Graham that this is a potentially serious problem that we 
>>should nip in the bud. I also would like to be a co-signatory on the 
>>proposed textual changes; Graham, please include me. I particularly like 
>>the inclusion of the phrase " for purposes of retrieval" as it 
>>acknowledges that URIs have other purposes.
>>Pat
>
>It's looking like we should make a formal comment as a WG ... what's the 
>timescale?

A formal comment as such has no special weight in the IETF process.

The URI mailing list may not be a formal IETF working group, but it is 
planning to make a submission for IETF publication, so I'd imagine the IETF 
modus operandi will be predominant.

I suggest we make an less-formal response for now (e.g. per [1]), and if a 
problem remains when the draft goes to IETF last-call, we may consider 
something more collective.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Feb/0061.html

As for timescales:  Roy mentioned requesting IETF last-call in two 
weeks.  The IETF last-call for a non-working-group specification is 4 
weeks.  In practice, I expect we have a bit longer because of a forthcoming 
IETF meeting.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 07:47:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 December 2014 23:04:05 UTC