- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:49:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <guha@alpiri.com>
- cc: <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, R.V.Guha wrote: > Following that argument, one should take the top N concepts > that will be used with RDF and include it in the standard. Based > on existing implementation data, you should be looking at > including tags having to do with authorship, thumbnailimage, > etc. Containers are way way down the list. That argument alone, maybe. But RDF containers differ from thumbnail, foaf:mbox, dc:title etc in that they are (like RDF itself) a generic, data structuring convention. One of many, no doubt. They're cross-domain, unworldly things. Let's agree to leave them in a spec somewhere (my vote: rdf schema), since we'd be pushing our charter to do otherwise. A more interesting thing to argue about is what the new simpler core-of-the-core-of-the-core part of the specs might actually look like. I guess that'd open up new issues which maybe it's time to have a crack at... danbri
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 21:50:49 UTC