Re: re mark bakers comment

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

   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion

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/public-sw-meaning/

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

And #rdfms-assertion is connected to...
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#rdfURIMeaning-39
which is not far from
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#uriMediaType-9


> 
> 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