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

Re: some comments on DTB snapshot

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:13:43 +0100
Message-ID: <492E72D7.4050105@inf.unibz.it>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> 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

s/DLB/BLD

> "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 10:13:54 GMT

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