Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion)

I wanted to say a few things as the guilty editor
(I co-edit RDF concepts)

1: the WG has decided that concepts is going to last call expecting to have 
this issue discussed as a last call issue - i.e. we saw that Peter, in 
particular, had a different view from the RDF Core WG

2: as editor I am very neutral - I really don't care about this issue - I see 
people like Dan and Peter (and also TimBL) with strongly held opinions - and 
I have sympathy with both sides

3: the ideal outcome for me is that we can get some other form of words that 
both sides can live with - I wonder whether Dan Brickley was getting closer 
in his discussion about relating RDF to the real world. I suspect Dan's text 
would not wholly please either side of the debate - but might be stuff that 
they could live with.

4: it's important that opinions get registered on RDF comments - by all means 
link back to discussion here, but if it's not in RDF comments it won't get 
counted. Given the strength of feeling its worth indicating whether you are 
speaking for yourself or for your organisation (for instance, I do not 
believe that there will be consensus in WebOnt to offer an opinion on behalf 
of the WG). Peter seems to believe that Lucent would share his view; Chris 
seemed overwhelmed, but I note that neither IBM rep on RDF Core has been.

If you send message to www-rdf-comments immediatly (before the last call gets 
published) please clearly label it as a last call comment; it's probably 
slightly easier if you hold off for a few days.

I am expecting only changes in the date and status section of the current last 
call candidate, which has been approved for publication:

5: realistically, I expect this to still be live at the plenary, when I hope 
to be able to lock some of the various adverseries in a room until they can 
agree text that both sides can live with.


Received on Saturday, 18 January 2003 15:47:20 UTC