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

Re: Social Meaning in Concepts and Abstract Syntax

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isis.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:14:51 -0500
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Message-Id: <1BCDC61C-49E0-11D7-9F85-0003939E0B44@isis.unc.edu>

On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 08:03  AM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> Bijan,
>
> Thank you for your comments.

You're welcome.

>  I think your preference here is clear enough, without paraphrasing:
>
> [[
>> Section 4 of Concepts and Abstract should be struck.
> ]]

Yes.

> This issue has already been raised, and is subject to some debate, and, 
> without prejudicing the outcome of our debate, I'm pretty sure there 
> will be some big changes.

I'm glad. I will point out that, if normative, i don't see that it's 
possible (or rather feasible) for RDFCore to produce  version of this 
section that is both substantive and appropriate. Now, of course, just 
because I don't see that it's possible, doesn't mean it isn't possible.

> Brian:  do we need to raise a separate issue for this, or can we tag it 
> onto an existing one?  (Your call.)

I think I support my desire with distinct, individually sufficient 
reasons. So long as they all are addressed, I don' t care how it's 
recorded.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 18:13:51 GMT

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