W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003


From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:50:45 +0100
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <21969.1051642245@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Given where we got to on timbl-03

from the draft minutes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0361.html

  PROPOSED: to reject timbl-03 according to
  Prop DaveB; Second JanG;
  For: ILRT; Against: W3C, PatH; Abstain: FrankM, MikeD.

I mentioned at the time that Jeremy said he'd prefer supporting what
PFPS said, who rejected it, so that would be nearly 2 for/against/abstain


  DanC pointed out the cost would be changes to Syntax, Test Cases,

  ACTION 20030425#4 frank figure out the cost to PRIMER of accepting timbl-03
  ACTION 20030425#5 danc figure out the cost to WebOnt of accepting timbl-03

Since I own it, I need some help in resolving this. The earlier the
better since this is the last remaining open syntax issue and I want
to get a new draft updated.

As long as PFPS objects to this change, I'm puzzled as to how to
resolve it, but that's more information I hope to get soon.  If he
says changing has no terrible consequences, I'll propose dropping it.
Still looks like it'll need several WDs changing

Those of you who used or were involved in creating DAML+OIL
from the Authors list on http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-index.html
  W3C - TimBL, DanC, danbri

why does your organisation now object or abstain to keeping it the same?


Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 14:53:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC