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

Re: Quick -comments summary upto and including 2003-02-13

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:50:13 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Thanks Jan, great work again:

At 11:42 14/02/2003 +0000, Jan Grant wrote:


>Bob MacGragor on Statings "Much ado about nothing"
>         Call to ditch semantics section 3.2.1. Maybe Brian should
>         pick this up?

This is a comment on the semantics doc, so I see it as Pat's bailiwick.


>Tim BL (A developer) on bagid:
>         Lots of followup, no disposition yet.

I'm not sure if this is a formal last call comment or not.

We have two running.  One is about syntax and removing bagID etc and the 
other is about the semantics of reification.  I've just replied to both to 
figure out whether we have a comment here or  not.


>Guus Schreiber comments on rdfs:
>         Brian asked for clarification, no response.

Guus clarified that he was not making a lc comment, so I've closed this one 


>PFPS: what's an RDF namespace?
>         Patrick Stickler agrees; Pete Johnston agrees; no disposition.

These are comments on concepts and syntax.  Graham?  Dave?

>Arjohn Kampman: duplicate axioms in RDF MT doc
>         Pat acks, will be fixed. No [close]

Awaiting change id.

>Arjohn Kampman: rdfs:Datatype rdfs:subClassOf ???
>         Pat acks, will be fixed, no [close]

Awaiting change id.


>PFPS social meaning and RDF:
>         Seth's comments are LCcomments until we know otherwise - bwm.

Typo in the URL - should be an "l" at the end, but apart from that, is this 
the right link?  I don't see that message from me in the archive.

Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 08:49:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:04 UTC