W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2003

Re: "proprietary", was Re: Enumeration in RDF?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:49:48 +0000
To: "ext Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <Zgz3v3hMLkXf.kSrH79g7@mail.nokia.com>


OK, well prehaps you'd prefer the term 
"non-standard".

Patrick


_____________Original message ____________
Subject:	"proprietary", was Re: Enumeration in RDF? 
Sender:	ext Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date:		Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:48:24 +0000


> > >  RDF has no official means of keeping track
> > of source and/or authority 
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> Meaning, even though RDF provides a vocabulary for reification,
> and some guidelines thereof, there are no explicit properties
> for specifying *specifically* the source or authority of an
> assertion, nor any treatment of such in the MT.
> 
> Any solution for tracking source/authority of assertions will
> be proprietary -- even if it constitutes a widely supported
> idiom.

You don't really mean "proprietary", do you?

How about: 

  Solution for tracking source/authority of assertions will not come
  from the current RDF Core specifications; you'll have to look
  elsewhere.

I've seen lots of people working on solutions here [1], and no one
that I've noticed is claiming any more proprietary rights to "their"
solutions than, say, the W3C RDF Core WG is claiming to "their"
specifications for RDF itself.  (That is, they may hold copyright on
the specification document(s), and they'd probably like some credit
when people talk about systems implementing the specification.)

     -- sandro

[1] eg http://www.w3.org/2001/12/attributions/
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 05:49:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:02 GMT