W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-editorial

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:20:11 +0100
Message-ID: <3B1E03DB.62E204F4@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Ora.Lassila@nokia.com
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Unless anyone objects to Ora's conclusions, I'll move this off the active
list.

Brian


Ora.Lassila@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> Additionally I wanted to say that I don't think any of this belongs to the
> errata document, this is merely stuff people got confused about when reading
> the spec. We will fix this when then next version of the spec is edited.
> 
>         - Ora
> 
> --
> Ora Lassila, mailto:ora.lassila@nokia.com, +1 (781) 993-4603
> Research Fellow, Nokia Research Center / Boston
> 
> > ----------
> > From:         ext Ora Lassila
> > Sent:         Friday, June 1, 2001 6:46
> > To:   w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > Subject:      Issue
> > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-editorial
> >
> > Some thoughts on how to fix the issues under "rdfms-editorial: General
> > editorial comments"
> > (http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-editorial):
> >
> > Issue: parseType="Resource"
> >
> > It has been suggested that an example would make the spec clearer on the
> > usage of parseType="Resource". We can simply add a reference to a later
> > example (namely, the one at the end of Section 7.3). I would also reword
> > the bit about other values of parseType to read "Other values of
> > parseType are reserved for future versions and extensions of RDF" (as
> > opposed to "future specifications"; "extensions" takes care of what we
> > did in DAML with parseType="daml:collection").
> >
> > Issue: the "v namespace" prefix
> >
> > In the spec's examples we use several "fictional" namespaces, and mostly
> > they are undeclared. Given that we now have several well established
> > namespaces (e.g., DC & RSS), we can cosnsistently use some of those
> > throughout the spec. We should also declare namespaces in every example
> > (personally, I think at least in every example which has an "rdf:RDF"
> > element, as a convention).
> >
> > As has been pointed out, "description.org" specifically is not a good
> > "sample" URI since this is a real domain belonging to an organization
> > promoting more research for Retinitis Pigmentosa. Again, let's use
> > "real" URIs.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >       - Ora
> >
> > --
> > Ora Lassila  mailto:daml@lassila.org  http://www.lassila.org/
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 06:21:46 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:02 EDT