- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I agree with all below; have no time to spend on this right now. I'll bookmark this for next time... My action was, I believe, to propose closure. I withdraw from any aspirations to do so; I sketch a path towards closure (below); the final RDFS tweaks before publication may make a little progress on this, but no promises. Dan On 26 Apr 2002, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 10:24, Dan Brickley wrote: > > > > I propose we close rdf-namespace-issue as follows. > > > > Is this enough to close the issue > > I don't think so; I don't think it makes the case for why > we should be able to keep the old namespace name even though > we're changing the language. > > It suggests that there is a case to be made, but it > doesn't make the case. > > I'd like to help write it, but I'm not in a good position just now. > > > > (@@ also ptr to charter which has nice words on this tension) > > perhaps pasting those words in is a step forward. > > > - that the final RDF Core RECommendations will set clearer expectations > > about the impact of subsequent revisions to RDF on the use of these > > namespaces. > > That's another promise that I'd like fullfilled before we close > the issue. > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# > > [2] http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# >
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 11:46:29 UTC