- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:01:46 +0100
- To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> > > >3: Make the above comment to RDF Core suggesting they are more specific. > > > > it seems to me that this is completely and RDF issue, and only > impacts OWL because OWL documents are RDF documents (making us > uniquely qualified to comment on them) - if that is true, I would > support the third option, with a recourse of going to option 1 or 2 > if RDF Core doesn't comply - this latter might or might not be a > threat to our LC status depending on how liberally one interprets > "editorial change" and if we hold off creating a test case until we > hear from RDF Core - seems to me endorsing option 1 requires the > least work... > -JH > Update - The last call reviewer of this part of the spec is Joe Reagle, he has suggested that: - the use of both exc-c14n and c14n is confusing - that it is a mistake to have the implementation variability I will keep this WG informed of progress, but suggest for now, that we simply watch what RDF Core do in response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0128.html Jeremy
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 05:02:08 UTC