W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Can we express propositonal attitudes twards reified statements in RDF ?

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:44:56 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213233646.02e9e000@localhost>
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Pat, Seth,

Please forgive me butting in here, but a couple of threads are intermingled 
and I'd like to straighten them out.

At 12:58 13/02/2003 -0800, Seth Russell wrote:

[...]


>Seth Russell
>a dissatisfied customer of RDF.

Seth,

This is not a general discussion list.  At the moment this list is for 
processing last call comments, and this thread is intermingled with another 
one and I'm not sure if you are making a separate comment.  You've had a 
discussion with Pat, and it doesn't look like you are satisfied.

If you'd like to make a formal last call comment to the WG, can I suggest 
you do so by sending the comment in a fresh thread.  Its helpful to the WG 
in processing these comments if:

   o they identify specific text in a document (though this may not apply 
in this case)
   o they clearly state what the issue is.  A test case is often very 
helpful here.
   o for issues like this one, which are about balancing the pro's and 
con's of different approaches, an indication of the significance of the 
issue to the commentor is helpful.  To put it crudely, there is a 
difference between a comment that says "I would have done it differently" 
and one that says "if you do this you will break every browser on the planet".

When we have got that clear, we can make sure we deal with your comment 
appropriately.

Brian
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 18:43:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT