On 2002-06-10 19:01, "ext Eric Miller" <em@w3.org> wrote: > Now that i'm back online, I see Patrick's suggestion... > > On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 11:15, Patrick Stickler wrote: > >> My specific recommendations are: >> >> 1. Leave the definition of rdfs:isDefinedBy as is, though removing >> the incorrect language about namespaces, allowing any instance >> of rdf:Resource and multiple statements. >> >> 2. Qualify objects of rdfs:isDefinedBy by class, in the case of >> RDF/XML instances, by the proposed rdfs:Schema class. This permits >> those who want/need to, to be explicit about the nature of the >> defining resource. >> >> 3. Clearly state that there is no functional relationship between >> the URI of a term and the namespace URI used in its RDF/XML >> serialization -- that the RDF model is based on URIs, not >> qnames, and as such, namespaces have no significance whatsoever. > > yep, i believe we're saying similar things. > > Patrick, have you taken a crack at this rewording? Not yet, but I would be happy to do so prior to Friday's telecon. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.comReceived on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 04:12:01 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:12 EDT