W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > May 2005

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

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:34:26 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5077A8336@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <dims@apache.org>, <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>

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/
> 
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 20:50:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:38 GMT