- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 13:49:10 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Yes, this is acceptable to me. #g -- At 12:50 PM 11/5/01 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >Graham, > >In > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Feb/0120.html > >you raised an issue with the RDF M&S spec which was captured in > > >http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris > >as > > The RDF XML syntax uses XML qnames to represent property URI's. However, > not all possible property URI's, for example, http://acme.com/property/ > can be represented in this manner. This is an example of a more general > issue, that the RDF XML syntax cannot represent all possible RDF models. > >On the 26th October 2001, the RDFCore WG decided > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0582.html > >to postpone consideration of this issue until a future WG. > >Please could you reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org >indicating whether this decision is acceptable. > >Brian McBride >RDFCore co-chair ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 08:53:41 UTC