W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2004

Re: re mark bakers comment

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 11:25:11 -0600
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1073323511.7166.303.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 11:10, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> cf
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2004JanMar/0003
> I note that Mark's msg
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0344
> seemed to suggest that he would like a postponed issue:
> [[
> Can we at least agree that this is an issue; that RDF Schema isn't
> self-descriptive?  I'm not detecting that you agree.
> ]]
> and particularly he is likely to be happier even with an issue postponed until 
> after the "media types as URIs" problem is fixed. I don't suppose we have one 
> do we?

To my satsifaction, we do; as Brian pointed out:

The RDFCore issue


may also be relevant to this.  In part it concerns what entailments a 
publisher of RDF endorses.  The director has agreed to this issue being 
postponed, and further discusion is happening in the semantic web 
meaning forum:


-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2004JanMar/0003.html

And #rdfms-assertion is connected to...
which is not far from

> I vaguely remember agreeing that mime types were inappropriate for carrying 
> the intended inference, but it may well make sense to review this later if 
> there are media type changes coming down the pipeline. 
> Jeremy
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 12:25:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:27 UTC