- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:11:48 +0100
- To: dehora <bill@dehora.fsnet.co.uk>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi Bill, Appologies are certainly not necessary. I'm kinda looking forward to 2.0 myself. Brian dehora wrote: > > : Brian McBride: > : I'd like to take the opportunity of Bill's message to remind folks > : of the RDFCore groups charter: > : > : http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter > : > : which states: > : > : The role of the RDFCore WG is to prepare the way for such work by > : stabilizing the core RDF specifications. The RDF Core WG is neither > : chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the RDF > : model. > : > : We are working on RDF 1.1 rather than 2.0, though hopefully, we are > : moving > : things along in the right direction. > : > : I think this is in keeping with what Bill was suggesting. > > Hi Brian, > > I jumped the gun there! > > It seems though, that RDF is often under criticism > from those that believe it expresses too much, and > those that believe it expresses too little. That's > a difficult place to be. Personally I'm never sure > which it is, if indeed it's either. > > (My apologies, 1.1 will do nicely) > > regards, > Bill de hOra
Received on Monday, 16 April 2001 15:11:34 UTC