- From: Ronald Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:39:35 -0800
- To: "'Brian McBride'" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride said: > At 09:36 05/02/2002 -0800, Ronald Daniel wrote: > > [...] > > > > I'm quite confident PRISM (and dublin core and most other apps) > > > will do just fine only using S-B. Actually, that was a quote of Dan C's. > Hmmm, does that mean that our user community is saying: > > o S-B on its own is sufficient > o keep it simple, only give us one way to do things What I am saying is subtly different. I'm saying that it doesn't appear that choosing S-A (or any other idiom) over S-B would cause us (PRISM) any serious heartburn. However, if you rely on us (PRISM and the community of programmers at large, IMHO) to correctly apply and maintain such distinctions, you will get serious heartburn when trying to use our data. (As an aside, S-B is probably closer to our intent than the others. But believe me, those idioms played no part in how the elements were defined. Some elements, like references to subject codes, are closer to S-A than S-B.) Ron Daniel Jr. Standards Architect Interwoven, Inc. Tel: 408-530-5922 Cell: 925-368-8371 Email: rdaniel@interwoven.com Visit www.interwoven.com
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 12:40:08 UTC