- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:40:54 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- cc: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On 20 Nov 2000, Jonas Liljegren wrote: > I would like Dan Brickley to make an official ruling, and update [1], > and later clarify the issue in a revision of the M&S document. Sorry guys, I'm not in the business of making "official rulings"; that's why we have working groups, document editors and Directo's decisions etc! I am however in the business of trying to make sure all that stuff (eg. possible rechartering of model/syntax work) reflects the concerns and experience of RDF implementors. Specifically, I'd like to better understand how the design issues here relate to existing RDF implementations and vocabularies. If/when we jump one way or the other on this issue, current code and systems may break if they've made a different interpretation of the spec. Right now I'm not sure if most implementors have for eg tried to remain neutral, with code that could operate in either style. I suspect most folk would value resolution of this issue pretty highly, and would live with the consequences. What I don't know yet is how big a disruption this issue's resolution might be. Dan
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 11:41:38 UTC