- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:51:23 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian, That's fine with me. I was just picking up what seemed to be inconsistencies. Maybe a cross-reference from #rdf-containers-otherapproaches to #rdfms-seq-representation, as well as the other way? #g -- At 03:33 PM 9/19/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >At 13:38 18/09/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: >>Brian, >> >>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches >> >>Since this issue was closed as "this issue is out of scope for this WG" I >>note that we have since decided to include a list facility along the >>lines suggested: >> >>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation >> >>Should first issue resolution be updated? > >I've been thinking not. We decided to include support for a >daml:collection like list structure. The question of alternative designs >for contains is more general. A future WG may consider this more general >question and conclude that with parseType="Collection" no more is needed, >or they may conclude otherwise. That just seems like territory we have >decided not to consider and in the interests of getting done I'm inclined >to leave it that way. > >Thoughts? > >Brian ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 12:58:23 UTC