- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:04:40 +0100
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:05 AM 8/16/01 -0400, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>>** rdfs-constraining-containers
>>
>>You have closed this issue claiming:
>>>other languages such as (DAML+OIL, WebOnt, prose) can express
>>>those contraints (sic)
>>
>>I would request that the Working Group provide an example of how
>>these constraints can be described in DAML+OIL. Otherwise I do
>>not consider this issue closed.
>>
>>Are you dissenting from the decision to close this issue? If so,
>>on what grounds?
>
>I dissent on the grounds that this resolution of the issue does not
>actually resolve the issue. I do not consider the issue resolved until you
>have an example of how to state these constraints in RDF.
OR... the group has agreed that this matter does not need to be solved by
this group, no?
Maybe the closure here should be to move the issue to the future features pile?
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2001 04:06:55 UTC