Re: language and adoption

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