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

Re: RDFCore issue pfps-12

From: Karsten Tolle <tolle@dbis.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:09:46 +0200
Message-ID: <002201c38719$9118f550$230b028d@HANNOVER>
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

Dear Brian,

I can life with the current situation and therefore accept the WG's
resolution.

Since some problems are remaining that can not be handled in short time (see
[3]),
I request that the issue be added to the postponed issue list so that it
will be considered
 by a future WG.

Sorry for not giving a clear answer at the first time.
Karsten
___________________________________
Karsten Tolle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: <tolle@dbis.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 4:13 PM
Subject: RDFCore issue pfps-12


> Karsten,
>
> Dan Brickley sent you an email [1] concerning the WG's resolution of the
> comment pfps-12 [2] asking you to indicate whether you accepted the WG's
> resolution.  Your response [3] didn't really answer this question.
>
> I appreciate that you don't find the current situation with containers
> and lists entirely satisfactory.  I don't think anyone does.  However
> the WG decided that providing a formal semantics for containers was
> simply too hard.
>
> You should also understand that we are way beyond our allowed time - to
> the point where the WG really are exhausted and need to wrap and publish
> what it has already accomplished before it falls apart.  We are simply
> unable to take on additional tasks, especially hard ones.  I just don't
> believe it is possible for us to do what you would like us to do.
>
> Therefore, I ask you to reflect on this issue and make a distinction
> between what would be nice to have and what is a must have or the specs
> can't be published.
>
> If you come to the conclusion that it would be better to publish what we
> have than not publish at all, I suggest you send a follow up message to
> rdf comments indicating this.  You might at that time request that the
> issue be added to the postponed issue list so that it will be considered
> by a future WG.
>
> Brian
>
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0294.html
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-12
>
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0299.html
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 02:11:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT