- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:33:51 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I've had an offlist email telling me the tone of this message was a bit, shall we say, crusty. That comment is right, and my apologies. I should have taken more time to explain. From my point of view its a minor nit, but W3C, rightly, take it a bit more seriously. We need to get the directors approval for publication of a first working draft. Until we've done that, the document can't be accurately called a W3C WD. There has been some discussion of this lately on the chairs list and Janet Daly recently asked for the Datatypes doc to be amended to be clear that it is not (yet) a WD. I didn't want us to commit the same offence twice in rapid succession, hence the unfortunately terse request for a rapid fix. Once again my appologies to Graham. Brian At 15:13 26/06/2002 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >Graham, > >This document claims to be a W3C working draft. Its not. Please could >you change this sharpish. > >Brian > > >At 16:31 21/06/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: > >>A first cut (dated 21-June) of the document is at: >> >> http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm >> >>This version has some textual content, but that is under active review, >>and the document is being offered at this time mainly for consideration >>of the outline structure. >> >>#g >> >> >>------------------- >>Graham Klyne >><GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 05:34:40 UTC