- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:51:01 -0700
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
> o it has removed redundancy in the grammar, as you commented above. > > o it has decided that partial descriptions of containers are legal > > o it has removed containers from the formal model section of > the RDF model > Actually, kind of sounds like you all removed the formal model from the original specification in its entirety, any way. > > > The WG has not completed considering containers. There are no > plans at present > to drop them from the specification. Note that other > specifications make use of > them (CC/PP), which would make removing them, shall we say, controversial. > People do tend to get pesky when you make modifications to something they've already used, or implemented. > > > > > Do you see a M & S 1.1 in the next year? > > > Depends on what you mean by M&S 1.1. Will there be a public announcement at the W3C of a RDF Syntax Specification draft and recommendation, since it seems you're pulling model into a separate document? One that supercedes the existing recommended RDF Model and Syntax specification? The RDFCore WG is behind > schedule and the > schedule is currently being updated. I hope to have an updated > schedule within > a month. I'm really looking forward to seeing the new schedule. Thanks Shelley > > Brian > > >
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 09:52:41 UTC