- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:25:56 +0100
- To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 10:56 24/06/2002 -0500, Eric Miller wrote: [...] >I think this distinction will be lost on those outside of this group >trying to get their heads around RDF. Often times what people are >trying to say helps determine use. I'm concerned that splitting this >notion over 2 documents may be seen as more confusing than helpful. Eric, My interpretation of the discussion and decision from the face to face was that the WG felt there were a number of things without a proper home, e.g. the graph syntax definition. I confess I've felt for some time that the asymetry of having a schema spec, but nothing similar for the rdf model indicated a problem. The decision we made, as I recall it, was to sketch out the contents of a document to describe the, oh I want to use the term "model", but Pat will jump on me if I do and I don't have a better word for it yet, but I hope you know what I mean. The idea in my mind is that we look at that plan and see if it makes sense. Another option we rejected was to combine this document with the schema spec, an option we might reconsider when we see the contents. We were aware of the impact this might have on the schedule when we discussed this. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 10:26:43 UTC