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

Re: Minutes: 2002-09-20

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:12:06 +0300
Message-ID: <006201c26473$9ed8a510$d74416ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 25 September, 2002 10:55
Subject: Re: Minutes: 2002-09-20

> If the decision was untidy, W3C intended 
> to dissent.

Well, the decision has been made (there is no longer an 'if').

If I understand the W3C process correctly, it is now the burden of 
those dissenting, or rather those member organizations intending to 
raise a formal objection, to present their arguments for consideration.

Thus, DanC and/or the W3C should present the WG with some official
summary of arguments why the decision that has been made by the
WG is unacceptable and should be modified or set aside.

In the meantime, the WG should continue to clarify the details of
the decision and complete the working drafts so that the community
also may participate in any further discussion.

And of course, that should include discussion and clarification
of the ramifications of the decision and how best to address
secondary issues relating to its formal definition, such as
representation in the abstract syntax and N-Triples, advice to
implementors, etc.

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 05:12:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:15 UTC