W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Web Ontology Working Group Consensus Review of RDF Core documents

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:42:41 +0100
To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDEEDKCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

WG: co-ordination:

Brian either:
- raise new issue for wowg 'literals in parsetype="Collection"', or add link
to wowg from issue hendler-01

and:

- raise new issue for wowg 'rdf:XMLLiteral' ambiguous or add link to wowg
from issue reagle-01 (including link to test cases, assuming Jim agrees
their relevance)

===


Hi Jim

I am still not quite sure of the RDF Core process for handling e-mails that
span our docs.

I will discuss only the issues you raise under "WOWG comments on RDF
language decisions". I hope other editors will further other issues.

> i. Design of rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:parseType="Literal":

This seems to be a duplicate of the issue

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-01

XMLLiteral equality.
We may assign a new issue ID or treat it under that one.

Please could you confirm that:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/att-0532/01-msg.ht
ml
contains two relevant test cases that you would like RDF Core to consider.

> ii.Constraints on rdf:parsetype="Collection"

Appears to be an endorsement of
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#hendler-01

if so, we may issue a new ID or treat it under the ID hendler-01.


Jeremy
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 08:42:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT