W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > November 2008

some comments on DTB snapshot

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:11:19 +0100
Message-ID: <492E7247.9070106@inf.unibz.it>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
a few comments on [1]:

- (I asked this question before but did not get an answer) why "intended
domain"? shouldn't this be just "domain"?
- I don't understand the purpose of the second editor's note in section
3.3.12.  If the description of the relationship with some SPARQL
function is desirable, this should be in the main text, not in an
editor's note.  Such a note should probably point out the difference
with the SPARQL function.  There is no requirement on DLB that it should
"emulate" SPARQL functions.
- Analogous to the comparison predicates for functions, the comparison
predicates for text should also be marked as "under discussion"
- in the specification of these comparison predicates, pred:text-compare
is not defined and pred:compare is not defined on values of text

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/draft/ED-rif-dtb-20081125/#Predicates_on_rdf:text
-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
scholar.
  - Donald Foster


Received on Thursday, 27 November 2008 10:11:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:59 GMT