- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:41:24 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: bparsia@isr.umd.edu, public-sw-meaning@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 11:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 10:05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > I agree entirely with Bijan here. > > > To be more explicit. > > 1/ I believe that this group should try to identify the issues that need to > be resolved. I'm ambivalent about that. Time spent building an issues list competes with time spent evaluating solutions. > 2/ I believe that there are only a small number of these issues. If there are only a few, then they won't cost much in overhead. That would be good. [...] > 6/ I believe that one of the issues that needs to be resolved is what > information is implicit in the use of a URI reference with optional > fragment identifier, particularly in the case where removing the > fragment identifier results in the URI that can be used to retrieve an > RDF (or OWL) document. Hmm... I don't see how that's any smaller than the whole rdfURIMeaning-39 issue. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 13:42:05 UTC