- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 11:25:11 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 11:10, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > cf > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2004JanMar/0003 > > I note that Mark's msg > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0344 > > seemed to suggest that he would like a postponed issue: > [[ > Can we at least agree that this is an issue; that RDF Schema isn't > self-descriptive? I'm not detecting that you agree. > ]] > > and particularly he is likely to be happier even with an issue postponed until > after the "media types as URIs" problem is fixed. I don't suppose we have one > do we? To my satsifaction, we do; as Brian pointed out: [[ The RDFCore issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion may also be relevant to this. In part it concerns what entailments a publisher of RDF endorses. The director has agreed to this issue being postponed, and further discusion is happening in the semantic web meaning forum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/ ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2004JanMar/0003.html And #rdfms-assertion is connected to... http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#rdfURIMeaning-39 which is not far from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#uriMediaType-9 > > I vaguely remember agreeing that mime types were inappropriate for carrying > the intended inference, but it may well make sense to review this later if > there are media type changes coming down the pipeline. > > > Jeremy -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 12:25:12 UTC