- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:46:50 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Brian seemed dubious of the significance of discussion on this issue. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0110.html Assuming this WG is not going to endorse Peter's comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0192.html may I request that those WG members who feel strongly do post comments to www-rdf-comments this week, either simply endorsing Peter's comment, or adding your own. As editor I have a responsibility to maximize the community consensus on this issue and my life is made more difficult in as much as I am aware of disagreements that are insufficiently apparant on the comments list. Peter, you have previously indicated that you believe your comment is one that would be endorsed by Lucent and is not just another personal comment from Peter. Actually getting such an endorsement from the Lucent AC rep, may help RDF Core address this comment with appropriate care. [I clearly found the telecon time we spent on this encouraging - I suspect compromise wording is possible. e.g. it may help to add a phrase like "When using RDF within a trading system the overall legal agreement of such systems SHOULD specify whether simple, RDF, RDFS or some additional entailments apply" ] Jeremy
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 05:47:03 UTC