proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)

Brian and I are discussing ways of clarifying the RDFS doc to 
close issue pfps-11, 'rdfs:comment implies entailments'.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-11

raised: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0145.html

summary:
[[
We agree that the schema document uses the same form of words for 
specifying, for example, rdf:type for which there are semantic conditions 
expressed in the model theory document, and say rdfs:comment for which no 
(or very much weaker) semantic conditions are expressed in the model theory 
document.

You are concerned that this might mislead a reader into thinking that there 
are model theoretic consequences that are not specified in the semantics 
document as illustrated in the Cretan example given above.
]]

We propose the adddition of a clarifying sentence to 
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_comment in the main paragraph concerning
rdfs:comment.

After 'Since RDF vocabularies are expressed as RDF graphs,
vocabularies defined in other namespaces may be used to provide
richer documentation.'
...add: 'Note that there are no model-theoretic consequences entailed by 
any assertions represented in the value of the rdfs:comment.'

Dan