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

WOWG: Resolution re: RDF/XML (was Re: Fwd: Re: LANG: owl:import - Two Proposals)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 03:57:00 -0400
Message-Id: <p05111700b9c2f6c3371a@[192.168.0.24]>
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

For a while now, people have been sending me messages saying "we 
didn't resolve to use RDF/XML" which didn't seem to make sense to me 
since we recorded an official recommendation.  I now see the problem 
- the minutes of the f2f contain an informal note of what we voted on:


>
>Maybe I'm quibbling now, but from the minutes of the F2F2 [1], the
>decision was:
>
>RESOLVED:
>
>     1.that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a
>transform
>     2.some form of presentation syntax is requirement
>     3.RDF is underlying syntax

This must be where some people's confusion is coming from -- although 
the minutes recorded it that way at the time, the official record of 
the f2f contains the actual resolution, wording and vote record:

"RESOLUTION: The exchange language for OWL is RDF/XML
   ==> 16 in favour"
	-- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf2.html

that document, approved by the WG, was the record of the official 
consensus votes (and recording dissent on some other issues)
  This is our official record and is what was reported forward to 
coordination group etc.

  Hope that clears some things up
  Jim H.



-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 05:27:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT