- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:25:29 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
* Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> [2003-03-07 09:43+0000] > > I propose we accept the recommendation from the group meeting at W3C tech > plenary: Seconded > [[ > The Semantic Web Architecture meeting at the W3C tech plenary > resolved unanimously to this message. > > We suggest that: > - section 4 is struck > - postpone rdfms-assertion > - strike other text concerning rdfms-assertion > - CG prioritise work on this issue, > co-ordinated with the TAG over URI denotation. > ]] > -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0486.html > > <aside> > Absent from the meeting, I'd like to thank Jeremy for taking the hot-seat, > and everyone who spent effort to bring the relevant issues to the fore. > > I think it is particularly appropriate that this issue be dealt with by > SWebCG or TAG, clearly separated from the RDF *technical* specification, > but indicating a sense of the purpose of RDF (whatever that may be ;-) > </aside> I'm not convinced the social and technical can be so easily separated, but I am convinced that further discussion is needed! With RDFIG chair hat on, I propose www-rdf-logic@w3.org (an RDFIG list) as an initial forum for continuing these discussions. If a more specific list is needed, or detailed doc drafting happens, we can always use www-archive or investigate a new list. For now I think the mission and membership of www-rdf-logic (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/) is close enough. That said, SW Coordination Group has the job of figuring out how to prioritise this work, so this is my view only at this stage... cheers, Dan
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 07:25:31 UTC