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

RE: More On the Semantic Web (or: is RDF any good?)

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 10:25:46 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20001106102501.025c7eb0@mail.gorge.net>
To: Matt Jensen <mattj@newsblip.com>, Gordon Joly <gordo@dircon.co.uk>
Cc: Craig Pugsley <craig.pugsley@mimesweeper.com>, "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "'semantic-web@w3.org'" <semantic-web@w3.org>

At 01:04 PM 11/6/00 -0500, Matt Jensen wrote:
>in a few years you should be able to get something that's useful

Any idea why it can't be done this year?

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Monday, 6 November 2000 13:24:14 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Sankar Virdhagriswaran: "Re: More On the Semantic Web (or: is RDF any good?)"
Previous message: Matt Jensen: "RE: More On the Semantic Web (or: is RDF any good?)"
In reply to: Matt Jensen: "RE: More On the Semantic Web (or: is RDF any good?)"
Next in thread: Matt Jensen: "RE: More On the Semantic Web (or: is RDF any good?)"
Reply: Matt Jensen: "RE: More On the Semantic Web (or: is RDF any good?)"
Reply: Dan Brickley: "RE: More On the Semantic Web (or: is RDF any good?)"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:19:43 GMT