Re: [Editorial][Core] Table 3-1

no problem.

On 5/9/05, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The WG decided to close this issue with no action.
> 
> We believe the term is correct, that we're talking about the value of
> the [relationship] property.  We could (and in other places do) talk
> more abstractly about relationship types.  Mixing these notations as
> "[relationship] type" seems to mix these two ideas, and instead conveys
> the type of the relationship property, which we define elsewhere as an
> IRI.
> 
> We'll assume this is acceptable to you if we don't hear from you in two
> weeks.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> > addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Davanum Srinivas
> > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:31 PM
> > To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: [Editorial][Core] Table 3-1
> >
> >
> > Should "Table 3-1. Predefined [relationship] values" say "Table 3-1.
> > Predefined [relationship] types"?
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
> >
> 
> 


-- 
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/