- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:35:58 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
All, On Thu, 24 May 2001, Brian McBride wrote: > > A3: Ora Lassilla/ send analysis (#rdf-container-syntax-ambiguity and > > Dan Brickley #rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema)to rdfcore-wg list [...] > > 15 re issues: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema > > > > Owner Dan Brickley > > > > Discussion re understanding of the issue as in Dan/Ora's message: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0113.html Disapointed to say this, but having failed to make sufficient progress with this issue in the past few days I would like to relinquish some of the 15-mins of agenda time allocated for today's discussion. I am also (due attendance at an offsite meeting) going to be joining by mobile phone, likely without IRC/Web access, so don't feel in a position to lead effective discussion of the containers-model issue at this point. Brian, could you (again my apologies for the timing) reorder the agenda accordingly? As a stopgap, I'll report my current thinking/progress by email here. I am now of the opinion that some relatively minor rewording of the formal model portion of the specification, plus ammendments/additions to Dave and Brian's 'Container syntax' proposal will allow us to deal with the 'representing partially described containers' of the container issue. Brief version: "use rdf:li for complete description of containers; use rdf:_n for partial descriptions; amend spec to make this distinction clear". I hope to have a complete and coherent proposal to the list in time for discussion at the next meeting. Dan (who is coming to terms with his first hard disk failure in 5 years, and giving thanks for CVS...)
Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 01:37:07 UTC