- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:42:50 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > The simplest answer that meets my needs is: "no, > it's not an RDF document; there is no rdf:aboutEach > attribute in RDF; we're sorry for creating any > impression that there was one.": ;-) I like this choice a lot, but I'm not sure how we do this within our "reinterpretation" theme. How is this a valid interpretation of the spec? Or are we going to claim "insufficient implementation experience" again? -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com> ]
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 01:43:02 UTC