- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:18:34 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > 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 I think we are talking only about closed-containers, which was the daml:collection issue. Otherapproaches I saw as a much more general rethink. (Procedurally I think I am the only one who might want to go this route ... if discussing daml:collection is currently out-of-order because the rdf-containers-otherapproaches issue is closed, then we may well have enough support to reopen it; which I would like in order to discuss other things. I am clear that this isn't the desire of the group). Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 05:18:50 UTC