Aaron Swartz <aswartz@...> writes:

> Ken MacLeod <ken@...> wrote:
>
> >> Ken MacLeod wrote: <http://www.egroups.com/message/rss-dev/1006>
> >>> Am I close?
> >> I find it a good summary.
> > If this solves the immediate need, then the next step is to word
> > it as specific changes to the spec, and propose those changes. I
> > know this would be several tasks down on my list, so if anyone can
> > pick it up (Eric, Aaron, anyone?), let us know when you start.
>
> Before writing these up as spec changes, I'd like to see a poll and
> perhaps even a vote on the issue. I was under the impression that
> there might be some resistance to the change, which is why I planned
> on saving it to 1.1. However, it seems to be a somewhat important
> issue, which is relatively unclear in the current spec, and so we
> need to pick at least _some_ sort of resolution.
>
> Second for a poll?

No problem, the poll's been seconded (and now thirded :-).

I believe we have determined, though the poll will surely help, that
there is considerable desire to have rdf:about be something different
than link, at some future time.

The resistance that I see is trying to determine, for 1.0, what it
should be used *for*, if it's *not* a copy of link.

My summary[1], as ideas for what is strictly necessary for releasing
1.0, is that all rdf:about must be globally unique, that link
therefore need not be unique, and that as a default, rdf:about
*should* be a copy of link. This leaves everything open for future
discussion, while still telling 1.0 implementors exactly what to
expect and not expect, in a hopefully future-compatible way.

I'm still rereading the threads on this, so please correct me if I've
missed something.

-- Ken