W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Re: RDFS rdfs:List/first/rest/nil updated

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:45:20 -0400
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030806144520.GN24187@w3.org>

* Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-08-06 15:32+0100]
> 
> 
> 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.

Thanks for reviewing this. Yes, it is somewhat graceless, but I couldn't 
figure a way of expanding on it without opening the RDF/OWL layering wormcan...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 10:45:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:34 EDT