- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:45:40 -0500 (EST)
- To: RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Variations on this idea have been discussed a number of times. I'll try to get some clarification about what the options are within W3C process and report back (for example. a W3C Note would be much easier than getting a new REC through the full-blown W3C working group process). Would an 'RDF Model' Note on the W3C site do the job, where that note re-articulated the Model component of the Model and Syntax spec, or is there a perceived need for a new RDF Model 'RECommendation'? Regarding the 'poor man' serialisation syntax, I'd very much like to see this. I do think we owe it to the XLink folks to try an XLink-based approach to this before inventing something new... Dan On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Jonas Liljegren wrote: > Sergey Melnik wrote: > > > > My answer to the what-to-do question: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Feb/0115.html > > Who will do this? > > Who can give the word? > > Why isn't the editors Ora Lassila and Ralph R. Swick involved in this > discussion? > > > If I (or anybody) would re-edit the spec, who (at w3c) would take it as > a new proposed recommendation? > > > > Excuse my ignorance. But I would lika to have the email (and home phone > number) for someone responsible, so that I could abuse him/her with > blames. ;-) > > -- > / Jonas - http://paranormal.o.se/perl/proj/rdf/schema_editor/ >
Received on Sunday, 27 February 2000 11:45:41 UTC