- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 17:12:29 +0000
- To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Following Dave's example of weeding out the issues list, I'd like to suggest these as possible quick kills. As before, the idea here is that if there is any discussion to be had on any issue, it just gets dropped from the list, for now. Those that survive, I'll bring to a telecon for formal closure. Propose close http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-resource-semantics on the grounds that the model theory says all that RDF is going to say about the nature of resources. Further specification of the nature of resources is the work of other WG's. Propose postpone http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-equivalent-uris on the grounds that it is out of scope of the charter. Propose postpone http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-contexts on the grunds that it is out of scope of the charter. Propose postpone http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches on the grounds that it is out of scope of the charter. Propose close http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-formal-semantics on the grounds that the model theory adequately addresses this issue. Propose close http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-logical-formalism on the graounds that the model theory adequately addressses this issue. Propose close http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-logical-terminololgy on the grounds that the new terminology introduced by the model theory adequately addresses this issue. Brian
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 12:17:01 UTC