Dan Brickley wrote: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/#ch_list > > Per http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-11 > "Lists are not well formed" the RDFS spec now has reworded text for > the collections vocab, following Peter's suggestion. > > See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0277.html > for the discussion that led to this text. > > I need some advice: > > - what we agreed w/ Peter was text for 'rdf:first' and the assumption > that similar changes would be needed for 'at least' rdf:List, > rdf:rest. > > - I've tried to make such changes, could do with a sanity check > especially rdf:nil seems awkward. This looked ok to me. I did find the note at the end of the intro to 5.2 awkward, but have failed in my attempt to write something better. BrianReceived on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 10:33:11 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:34 EDT