Hi Renato, Tim,
I completely agree with Renato and wanted to emphasize that my original
email was not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the earlier
work he did on vCard in RDF or to say that the new note is perfect. In
fact, the last Social Web camp gave Harry, Dan, and myself a
Hi, Philip-
Philip Taylor wrote (on 5/9/09 4:02 PM):
[Removed from public-html since I don't think I'm saying anything
interesting enough to bother everyone with,]
FYI, typically moving a thread to www-archive gets many more people
reading it. A post to www-archive is essentially a call for
At 12:22 PM 5/11/2009 +0200, Peter Mika wrote:
... I wouldn't mind seeing the W3C to become the organization
where ontologies are developed in a collaborative fashion
and hosted in a long term,
I'd like W3C to be *one of* the organizations that do this. That is,
I wouldn't advocate for an
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Ralph R. Swick sw...@w3.org wrote:
At 12:22 PM 5/11/2009 +0200, Peter Mika wrote:
... I wouldn't mind seeing the W3C to become the organization
where ontologies are developed in a collaborative fashion
and hosted in a long term,
I would be very interested in
The problem with Member Submissions and W3C Notes is an unclear update
mechanism and a lack of maintenance. Vocabs will evolve, and I'm not
sure if the Rec model really works for them. The Note model works
even less, with the Note being published once and then generally
sticking around
Can we move forward on the idea of creating a W3C vCard/RDF Interest
Group Note (that merges the W3C Member submission and the An Ontology
for vCards) as a task of the Semantic Web Interest Group?
BTW, I will be at the ESWC in Heraklion in a few weeks, so maybe an
opportunity to discuss
