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 19:53:04 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040219194542.025cacb8@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 17:08 19/02/04 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>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
>
>That looks plausible to me.  Anyone unhappy?
>
>Graham, does it help to have more folks chip in with "me too" messages at 
>this stage?

Probably not.  Better, I think, to debate the case coherently than make it 
a political issue.  Having Jeremy and Pat supporting my comments will, I 
think, be enough to show it's not an isolated comment.  We're not at the 
stage of IETF last-call yet.

On the other hand, if people have additional comments to make that add 
substantially to the debate, that's always welcome.  (But please bear in 
mind that this specification is in its final stages of being nailed down, 
so any comments should be addressed specifically to the specification 
rather than to broader issues, preferably with suggestions for improvement.)

If Pat agrees with the specific wording in [1] cited above (Jeremy already 
has), then I'm ready to send it off.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 14:59:28 UTC

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