W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2000

Re: SV: A certain difficulty - lack of action!

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>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0002271137080.5842-100000@tux.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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:42 GMT