Brian McBride wrote: > snip > > With regards to isDefinedBy, I think it would be fine for the primer to > say nothing about it. If the WG felt that the primer would be enhanced > by a short description, I might suggest something along the lines of the > following would describe the WG's decision: > > [[ > It is often useful to indicate in an RDF graph where the definition of a > class or a property, or indeed any resource, may be found. The > rdfs:isDefinedBy property may be used for this purpose. This property > may be used to indicate an RDF Schema that describes the resource, > however, RDF imposes no constraints on the values this property. If the > resource that is the value of such a property is retrieved from the web, > it may be an RDF Schema, but there is no guarantee that it will be. > ]] > > This text lacks the lightness of touch and ease on the readers eye that > I would hope for in the primer, so does require some help from the > editor, but I hope indicates the sort of thing we might usefully say in > this document. > Writing with the lightness of touch and ease on the readers eye for which he is so well known, the editor asks: when might the WG be expected to express its considered opinion on this subject? --Frank "non-normative semantics" Manola -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 16:23:08 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:51 EDT