W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: rdf:text review

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:31:04 +0100
Message-Id: <BA0F8B74-CB67-4EE9-8126-3162B7D73763@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>

On 28 Apr 2009, at 10:32, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
[snip]
>> I've had some conversation with Boris about Andy's comments and he
>> was thinking that not much,
>
> It's hardly a lot of changes but the use of the entailment  
> extension point should go in the rdf:text doc as should the  
> prohibition (if that's what we want to propose) on appearing in  
> SPARQL results.
>
>> if any changes were actually needed to rif:text.
>
> :-)
>
>> It would be good to get clear on this *before* sending
>> comments. Perhaps, Axel, Andy, Boris and I could telcon at some  
>> point?
>
> This is to be a WG response,

I hope I'm not suggesting otherwise.

> not my personal comments and I note Steve is also reviewing the text.

Be good to have steve it.

> Could the comments go to the WG list?

I was merely suggesting that a task force between actively engaged  
people might help clarify issues. In particular, I'm not as actively  
engaged as would make me a good substitute for, e.g., Boris.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 12:27:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT