RE: LC Issue timbl-01 choices

I vote to leave bagID in.

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: 01 April, 2003 16:12
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: LC Issue timbl-01 choices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timbl-01 is about the first question Tim raised in
>   
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMa
> r/0226.html
> about the use of bagID, we had some discussion of it last week but
> didn't reach a conclusion or discuss in the last telcon.  
> 
> 
> The first question in the email is:
>   "Is this feature then worth implementing? What does the 
> group think?"
> 
> We know bagID it isn't used, and probably could be killed if we
> didn't feel such a change was rather late and/or constrained by
> charter.  If we wanted however that would mean new last call
> documents for RDF/XML Syntax and Primer - removing things.  In this
> case the answer would be:
> 
>   No and we accept your comment. We will remove bagID from the
>   language and WDs.  This substantial change will mean preparing a
>   new set of last call documents.
> 
> 
> The alternative is to reject this.  I don't see the point of
> postponing this any further, we didn't remove it, wrote test cases
> for it and people implemented it.  So the answer to this question is:
> 
>    Yes and we reject your comment that it is not worth implementing.
>    Several others have implemented it in the RDF/XML->RDF graph
>    mapping from the current round of specifications such as rdflib,
>    Drive, SWI-Prolog, Sesame parser, ARP and raptor.
> 
> 
> So hopefully, can we pick one of these by the next telcon Friday?
> 
> Brian: please put this on the agenda.
> 
> 
> The second part of the above email is about timbl-02
> 
> Dave
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 08:36:12 UTC