|
|
> From [log in to unmask] Thu Feb 14 15:05 MET 2002
> X-Sender: em@localhost
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:09:05 -0500
> From: Eric Miller <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Fixing DCQ RDF Schema (was Re: DCQ schema)
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Can I suggest we focus the energy of this group for the next couple days in
> reviewing the alternative schemas which we think more accurately reflect
> the DCQ terms. I know of the following:
>
> 1) http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq
> 2) Roland, et.al. can you provide urls for your DCQ work?
DCQ/RDF/XML prop.rec. sec5.
>
> Its (in my opinion) not a consensus agreement that requires the entire
> board approval, but its generally good practice if more than one person
> reviews the schemas.
This has been discussed at the Tokyo AC meeting. The normative schema is in
dc:usage jurisdiction.
rs
> Just look what happened last time :)
>
> --
> eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/
> semantic web activity lead mailto:[log in to unmask]
> w3c world wide web consortium tel:1.614.763.1100
>
|
|
|
|