- From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:28:06 -0800
- To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: "DAWG Mailing List" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
My .02 is that it's suffiently important and/or potentially contentious that's it's worth calling out separately. Calling all process wonks ... (google fails me on 'define:wonk': I'm hoping this isn't a pejorative usage. Light humour is intended.) Howard > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 10:16 AM > To: howardk@fatdog.com > Cc: DAWG Mailing List > Subject: Re: Use cases for XML serialization > > > > On Mar 22, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Howard Katz wrote: > > > Thanks Bijan, > > No problem. > > > Yes, that was me. What I was actually saying (JANNE: I didn't see this > > get > > into the IRC record; would you mind amending it?) was that I'd like to > > see a > > formal addition to the Use Cases document if we're going to consider > > this. > > Ok. Is it that you don't think it's sufficiently motivated by the WSDL > requirement, or is it that you prefer to have it called out separately > in any case? (I'm fine with either, fwiw :)) > > > My understanding (please anybody, correct me if I'm wrong) was that > > anything > > considered sufficiently important to become part of the official > > specification needs to be motivated by a formal use case first. Is > > that not > > so? > > I have no idea ;) Since I think it's very overdetermined, I have a > little trouble getting some distance. > > But if there needs to be text, I would take an action to try to massage > the above or the like into such text. Or maybe kendall would take it > from there if I got him some donuts :) > > Cheers, > Bijan. > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 18:28:15 UTC