RE: Quick reviews of new abstract syntax?

Thanks for opening a can of worms :) ... comment declined.

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com]
> Sent: 05 November 2002 14:54
> To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Quick reviews of new abstract syntax?
> 
> 
> 
> > Anyone up to doing a very quick review of the modified abstract syntax
> ...
> >
> >
> http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/RDF-concepts/2002-11-05/rdf-co
> ncepts.html
> 
> 
> re: #section-Graph-syntax
> one comment I have is on
>   The subject may not be an RDF literal.
> 
> for a plain literal maybe OK, but a typed literal
> can be a perfect subject
> e.g.
>   "10"^^xsd:int xsd:int "10".
> 
> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 09:40:02 UTC