- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:20:06 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, fmanola@mitre.org
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
At 13:39 17/03/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >I believe that this response does not address all of my comments in the >referenced email message. Note in particular that several of the quotes I >used in my messages do not come from Primer. Peter, I'd like to point out that the WG's response, conveyed to you by Frank, was to the issue the WG recorded, as noted in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0292.html [[ We need to be clear about what the issue is that we are identifying. The issue http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-15 concerns the sentence in the primer: [[ These examples also illustrate one of the basic architectural principles of the Web, which is that anyone should be able say anything they want about existing resources [BERNERS-LEE98]. ]] which Peter states is contradicted by the fact that not all graphs can be serialized in RDF/XML. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0194.html Frank has suggested editorial rewording that is not acceptable to Peter. This is not an issue of general applicability'. ]] Does the WG's decision resolve THIS ISSUE to your satisfaction? Brian
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 11:19:16 UTC