- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:27:52 +0300
- To: <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 09 April, 2003 10:25 > To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Concepts: pfps-14 Social Meaning & authority for > datatypes > > > > Patrick: > > I agree. This is incorrect > > that seems to be conclusive that the text should go. > One of the many problems with section 4 was that some people > did not like the > idea that there is a defining authority. If the other text we > have concerning > defining authorities is questionable, then deleting it feels > like a safe > option (since RDF with no defining authorities even for > datatypes is not > really significantly more broken than RDF with no defining > authorities except > for datatypes). > > Jeremy > > (I am sorry Patrick I haven't even tried to understand your > argument for why > it is wrong, or how to fix it) Fair enough. My view in a nutshell is that there *are* defining authorities, both for datatypes and for URI denotations, but they need not be the *same* authority for a given URI denoting a given datatype. And the text in question IMO says that they are the same authority. Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 05:27:56 UTC