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

Re: Last Call: draft-w3c-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-00 ready to submit?

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:42:32 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8C61D38.2CB3B%me@aaronsw.com>
On 2002-03-26 11:51 AM, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> The security considerations section looks a bit risky and imprecise; a flag
> red enough to attract attention, but having no answers.

Have a wording suggestion?
> [[The rdf:ID and rdf:about attributes can be used to define fragments in an
> RDF document.]]
> Is that true?  Hmmm, we said rdf:ID="foo" was equivalent to
> rdf:about="#foo".  Does rdf:ID actually define a fragment in the
> document?  Did we mean that to happen with rdf:about too?

That seemed to be the intention of the older spec, and is certainly what our
fragments argument is based on.
>  o an overview of the ietf process, preferably from someone who has done
> this before.  Are we cooked to start this?

Perhaps Graham can provide this, I've not published an RFC with it before.
Vaguely it goes something like this:

1. Publish an Internet-Draft
2. If comments, fix them and go back to step 1
3. Get approval from the IESG/Regional Coordinator
4. Have the RFC Editor publish it.
>  o Your current draft copied to an archive

That was the intent in including it in my last message.

> and review by at least two members of the WG.

An older draft has been reviewed by Graham and DaveB, this one incorporates
the fixes they suggested.

> If we can get volunteers asap, I can put it on the
> agenda for approval this Friday.


[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 13:42:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:11 UTC