W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Factoring of entailment regimes (was: Re: Ill-typed vs. inconsistent?)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:50:08 +0000
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7001C0DB-66A9-4B98-80B5-3693F32E5853@cyganiak.de>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 16 Nov 2012, at 14:32, Ivan Herman wrote:
> I thought we discussed having all the rules in a separate document (as a Note); what is wrong with that?

The Note informatively describes the semantics of RDF and RDFS. If the Note can be cleanly split in two, and the two parts included as informative material in the documents that define RDF and RDFS, isn't that better in every way?

SKOS, for example, defines the language and any equivalence/consistency constraints in the same document, and splitting them off into a separate document would seem like a bad idea. The same logic applies to RDFS, IMO.

FWIW, this would add perhaps one page of content to Concepts and two to Schema, or double that with examples. Would it really be worth having a new document for 3-6 pages of content?

Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 14:51:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:09 UTC