W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Clarification of f2f IRC log for minutes

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:34:26 +0100
To: <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIELGCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Hi Dan,

I am looking at
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf2.html

where you say:

@@what were bullets 1-3?

the answer is further up the IRC log, my new comments in @@

@@bullet 1
16:01:08 [jjcscribe]
guus: propose that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax
and a transform
@@bullet 2
16:01:28 [jjcscribe]
guus: some form of preservation of presentation syntax is requirement
@@bullet 3
16:02:19 [jjcscribe]
guus: propose also RDF is underlying syntax
16:04:40 [jjcscribe]
deb we should present our solution in a way that makes XML and antiRDF
people happy
@@bullet 4
16:05:30 [jjcscribe]
guus: propose that the presentation syntax is in XML
16:05:39 [jjcscribe]
(last bit seems controversial)
16:07:02 [jjcscribe]
ora; M&S says RDF/XML is one serialization
16:07:37 [ora]
"only one" serialization, others may exist
16:07:52 [ora]
not "the only one"
16:08:19 [DanC]
but until lots of consumers grok another RDF syntax, it is the only one
@@note it was significant that bullet 4 did not get consensus
16:08:24 [jjcscribe]
AGREEMENT: to the bullers 1-3 of above proposal, (not that presentation
syntax is XML - but the other ones)

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 08:34:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT