- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:04:19 +0000
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- CC: RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, timbl@w3.org
Aaron, Thank you for drawing attention to this issue. Do you consider this already covered by: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-interpretation or is there something more? Brian Aaron Swartz wrote: > > I remember Tim speaking about this at the RDF IG F2F (but I can't find it in > my notes) -- as I recall it was something like this: > > TimBL: We need to be sure that RDF has a clause in it that you can be > held responsible for the triples you assert. We didn't do this in HTTP, > and we should have. > > GK?: That's no good -- what if I wanted to have a page of myths. > > Aaron, others: Well then reify them. > > Of course Tim was much more eloquent. Anyway, I wanted to get this saved. > Does it belong on the issues list? > -- > Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| ...schoolyard subversion... > <http://www.aaronsw.com> | because school harms kids > AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| http://aaronsw.com/school/
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 04:03:34 UTC