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

Re: Syntax wd

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 08:11:29 +0100 (BST)
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307040807230.8873-100000@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Hi Dave
> 
> I am writing the response to Nick Efthymiou re
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#efth-01
> and I believe you should have deleted this text:
> [[
> Note (Informative): The Working Group invites feedback from the community on 
> the effects of the removals and additions of these terms on existing 
> implementations and documents and on the costs and benefits of adopting a new 
> namespace URI to reflect this change (currently not proposed by the Working 
> Group). 
> ]]
> 
> in light of 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0207
> RESOLVED:
>    not to change the URI REFS for the RDF and RDFS namespaces
> ACTION: daveb editorial changes reflecting not changing namespace URI

Sigh.  Another action I missed.

I've updated the draft editor's draft (sic) to remove the two
informational notes that mentioned this.  One was in the 5.1
namespace section, the other near where aboutEach* is mentioned in 7.2.5.
Changes to CVS 1.502 at
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

So apart from those two deletions, the 26 June draft of
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/
remains the latest for review.

Dave
Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 03:13:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:42 EDT