W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001


From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:22:42 -0700
Message-ID: <3ADD5CE2.781F1722@eng.sun.com>
To: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
CC: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Danny Ayers wrote:
> Just a thought - what we are more or less saying by embedding RDF in a doc
> is that 'here is some metadata, process it if you can', so might not a PI
> play a role here? (presumably in combination with NOTATIONs)

Well, I've no heard this directly from him, but my understanding is that
Tim BL really hates PIs. I'm pretty sure Dan does. Besides, I'm not sure
that PIs are really appropriate here since their role isn't typically to 
play such an essential part in a document. They're really there only to 
add literally "processing instructions" to a document. But I do agree 
it's possible that we could use a formalized PI to declare the location 
of a notation processor, which is something I've done before under different 
circumstances, and might be appropriate here. Your suggestion in this 
sense is a good one.

But politically at the W3C? I dunno. I'm little interested in political 
battles at this point in my life -- been there, too much blood.

Murray Altheim                            <mailto:altheim&#x40;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 04:59:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:29 UTC