W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: addressing requirements around daml:collection (rdfms-seq-representation)

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>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCEMCCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> 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

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).

Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 05:18:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:12 UTC