At 05:27 PM 2/18/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >At 16:37 18/02/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: > >>With reference to this comment: >> >>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0166.html >> >>What do we consider to be the scope of "RDF core"? >> >>I think that RDF core consists of the bare RDF language, RDF vocabulary >>and RDFS vocabulary, with corresponding entailments and intended >>interpretations. I.e. the scope of this working group. >> >>Any dissent? > >I'm not sure why you are asking this question? If you you need to take >this to the WG it should go on the comments list. Well it was, I thought, an editorial issue which in no way changes the meaning of RDF as described, but a terminological issue that I don't recall we've discussed. As such, I thought a quick check with the WG to see if we all had the same understanding was a quick and easy question. >FWIW, I'm not sure why we need this term. I've looked at a few cases >where its been used in comments and it seemed one could avoid using it >entirely. I wonder also whether we need to check for consistent use >across documents. Which documents contain the term, other than to refer >to the WG? I guess we don't. I'll plan on editorializing it out. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 14:10:03 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:51 EDT