Re: thumbs up for RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema

* Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-01-15 13:56+0000]
> Thanks Jos, good catch.
> 
> At 12:38 15/01/2003 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >| rdf:XMLLiteral
> >|       rdfs:comment
> >|             "The class of XML literals." ;
> >|       a     rdfs:Class ;
> >
> >according to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
> >that should be
> >        a     rdfs:Datatype ;
> 
> I suggest that should be fixed.  Danbri - do you agree?

Assuming usual disclaimers w.r.t. my knowledge of latest trends in RDF 
datatyping formalisms, yes, sounds like a good catch.


> [...]
> 
> >|
> >| rdfs:Datatype
> >|       rdfs:comment
> >|             "The class of RDF datatypes." ;
> >|       a     rdfs:Class ;
> >|       rdfs:label
> >|             "Datatype" ;
> >|       rdfs:isDefinedBy
> >|             rdfs: .
> >
> >according to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
> >that should add
> >        rdfs:subClassOf     rdfs:Class ;
> 
> Again, that looks like something we should fix.  Danbri?

Ditto.

Dan