Until now, I've understood that, as a working group, we've been moving toward defining RDF *and* RDFS, without being particularly concerned about layering the defining documents. I think it's rather late in the day to start backing away from this position. Lacking some more compelling rationale, I'm inclined to decline this request. #g -- At 09:59 11/07/03 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >Please keep links from concepts to [RDF-VOCABULARY] >informative, and add a note to semantics that >while it specifies both languages, it completely >specifies RDF without reference to RDFS. > >In particular, strike the 2nd bullet under >"4. RDF Core URI Vocabulary and Namespaces (Normative)" >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-URIspaces > >http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# (conventionally associated with >namespace prefix rdfs:) > >and move the [RDF-VOCABULARY] citation from the list of >normative references to the informative references. > >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5EReceived on Friday, 11 July 2003 17:40:37 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:45 EDT