W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007


From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:05:12 +0100
Message-ID: <474C3228.8010108@w3.org>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
The niceties of dated vs non-dated URI-s of W3C documents... I must
admit I did not even realize the XHTML2 group has published a new
version yesterday.

Regardless, my statement is still true, namely that the safest bet at
this moment is to refer to RDFa that is mandated to become a
Recommendation, it is on the charter of the SWD WG, and there is a
current official timeline for it. I do not know about the detailed plans
of the XHTML2. *If* they publish it as a Recommendation before OWL1.1
becomes one, we can always switch to that one if we want; there should
be no technical difference between the two.


Michael Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 15:29 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Just to clarify the current situation:
>> - The CURIE WD[1] is, well, moribund indeed. It is not clear whether the
>> XHTML2 WG will ever go down the full Recommendation route with it and,
>> if yes, when.
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/curie
> The timeline is confusing things.  Prior to yesterday [1] was
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20070307
> and now it has been updated to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126
> Were your statements intended to apply to the March draft or the Nov 26
> draft, or is the distinction irrelevant?
> Thanks,


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 15:05:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:40 UTC