- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:45:54 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote: > > There seem to be no responses to Graham's proposed resolution text, and I assume > therefore no dissent. This will be on Friday's telecon agenda. I agree with it, but I'm not quite sure how it relates to our deliverables. Is it already reflected in the model theory or one of the other drafts? Are you suggesting that this text goes in the model theory spec? Do we have test cases? The meeting records are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Rather than elaborate proposals like this, I'd rather see agenda items like: PROPOSED: that section 4.3 of the 13 Sep syntax draft, along with test cases X, Y, and Z, adequately addresses issue BLORTZ. > Graham Klyne wrote: > > > With respect to the issue: > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 13:47:03 UTC