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