- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:41:06 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
At 11:09 11/10/2002 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >Brian, > >In #rdfig (just before >http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2002-10-11#T16-04-29 >) we discovered the RDF issues list doesn't >say anything about rdf:nodeID. > >I found the WG decision, confirmed with Dave B, >and updated the issues list, moving the >issue from 'postponed' to 'attention developers'. I had left under postponed because it is still not possible to represent all possible rdf graphs in the rdf/xml syntax. However, we have dealt with the major issue and I don't think anyone has complained about the others. I certainly don't intend to move it back again. Thanks Dan. Brian
Received on Monday, 14 October 2002 03:04:19 UTC