- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:56:35 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:26 AM 11/16/01 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Looking at Dave's implementation overview stuff it seemed to say, aboutEach
>is implementable but quite difficult and most people haven't bothered. That
>is it is an implementation defect not a spec defect.
To the extent that it is difficult to implement may also a spec
defect; i.e. if its benefit doesn't match the effort of implementing it.
>The main reason for
>dropping aboutEach, which isn't such a bad one, is that the corner cases to
>do with aboutEach are unclear (in a range of issues raised in part by me).
>The easiest way to clarify the corner cases is excision of aboutEach.
>Instead of trimming five toenails, it might be easier to cut off the foot.
I think we also have a problem that if we really think it's a bad idea, we
ought to drop it sooner rather than later; if it stays in V1.0 then I
predict we'll be stuck with it for a very long time.
(Which makes me think that the criteria for dropping bad features should
probably be less stringent than the criteria for adding "cool"
features. For what it's worth, if this were being advanced under the IETF
standards process, it's seems likely to me that aboutEach would get dropped
between "proposed" and "draft" standard stages.)
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 08:06:15 UTC