- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 19 Sep 2002 12:39:48 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 10:51, Graham Klyne wrote: > > Brian, > > That's fine with me. Umm... > 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? Yes, please. I keep looking under otherapproaches for the container stuff. So do other folks. The WebOnt chairs almost got all confused cuz it wasn't there. Just a "see also" or "related issues" thingy would do. Hmm... the see also is already there. Maybe put it first? > >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> -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 13:41:42 UTC