- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:14:33 -0000
- To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- Cc: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> I am however in the business of trying to make sure all that > stuff (eg. > possible rechartering of model/syntax work) reflects the concerns and > experience of RDF implementors. Specifically, I'd like to better > understand how the design issues here relate to existing RDF > implementations and vocabularies. If/when we jump one way or > the other on > this issue, current code and systems may break if they've > made a different > interpretation of the spec. Right now I'm not sure if most > implementors > have for eg tried to remain neutral, with code that could operate in > either style. I suspect most folk would value resolution of this issue > pretty highly, and would live with the consequences. What I > don't know yet > is how big a disruption this issue's resolution might be. I can see that the disruption caused to current implementations would be a factor if m&s was ambiguous. But if the answer lies in m&s, I humbly suggest the spec takes precedence. That's what specs are for. Brian
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 12:14:44 UTC