RE: Use cases for XML serialization

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