- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:56:58 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>I picked up the ball on this 28 Mar: > >"Volunteers: DanC, Lynn Stein (some timing issues need to be resolved), >Jos >De Roo, >Will participate in RDF core working group discussion." >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0352.html > >I got some inspiration from today's RDF Core telcon >(and in discussion that followed after the formal >telcon was adjourned). > >In case Lynn finds time to participate, I'm also summarizing >the history here. (Brian, maybe you could link this >message or some of the stuff I cite here from the >rdfms-seq-representation issue) > <giant snip> > >Appendix: some stuff I found while researching >this message. I thought I'd cite them in >the message, but they didn't turn out to be >directly relevant. But rather than throwing >them away, I think I'll append them. Well, there is a relevance here in that what I say in the following message is pretty much what I was going to put into the next draft of the MT, and I was assuming that it was kind of broadly accepted. If it isn't, and if this vision of RDF containers isn't close to being right, then I don't know how to put them into the MT. Which is fine, but not if we expect to get a final draft of a complete MT by next week, as I promised on the telecon today. I need a non-moving target, guys. >Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f) >From: Pat Hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu) >Date: Mon, Feb 04 2002 >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0072.html > >a theory of rdf:Bags >From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org) >Date: Sun, Feb 17 2002 >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0483 > >hm... what ever became of "ACTION: 2002-02-15#4 PatH: Send a few >paragraphs to the list to address this" -- >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476 >that action isn't mentioned in the next week's minutes. God, I HATE looking through old minutes. Hmmm, I had totally forgotten that, I confess. And at this date I have no idea what I was going to say about it. I think it was just going to be a kind of elementary observation that there is no natural way to define 'rest' in an ordinal representation without doing arithmetic. Nothing deep, Im sure. Pat PS in that same minutes I found this, BTW. So why are we still talking about it?? 19: Issue rdf-containers-otherapproaches The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design? Propose: o the WG resolves this issue is out of scope for this WG but places the issue on the list of to be considered by a future WG. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches APPROVED -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 21:57:04 UTC