- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:05:39 -0400
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, August 16, 2001, at 07:25 AM, Brian McBride wrote:
> My reading of the situation is that the original issue raised by Jonas
> has been closed. I suggest you propose some new text for the working
> draft to address the issue you raised.
I propose section 4.1.2. Versioning and URI references is removed.
> ** rdfs-constraining-containers
>
> You have closed this issue claiming:
>> other languages such as (DAML+OIL, WebOnt, prose) can express
>> those contraints (sic)
>
> I would request that the Working Group provide an example of how
> these constraints can be described in DAML+OIL. Otherwise I do
> not consider this issue closed.
>
> Are you dissenting from the decision to close this issue? If so,
> on what grounds?
I dissent on the grounds that this resolution of the issue does
not actually resolve the issue. I do not consider the issue
resolved until you have an example of how to state these
constraints in RDF.
--
"Aaron Swartz" | Blogspace
<mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://blogspace.com/about/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> | weaving the two-way web
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 09:05:33 UTC