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

Re: status of rdf, rdfs, and owl ``namespace files''

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:40:17 +0000
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: Nick.Efthymiou@schwab.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <3281.1047991217@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" said:
> 
> My comments do not address this issue at all.  I was inquiring as to what
> status the contents of these files have.  

I'm sorry but I don't see your inquiry in the www-rdf-comments
archive under this thread.  Maybe I missed it or you are bringing
this thread in from somewhere else?  I copied you in my reply to Nick
since he CC:ed you in Nick's original message:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0490.html


> Is there any normative force to these files?  If so, what is this force?
> 
> For example, these files might be normative as to which URI references are
> in the RDF / RDFS vocabulary.  They might be normative as to the semantics
> of RDF or RDFS.  The OWL file might be a normative part of RDF vocabulary
> extensions, i.e., any vocabulary extension might need a file that provides
> (all) the RDFS meaning of vocabulary elements in the vocabulary extension.

What OWL file?  A file in OWL written in RDF/XML?  The OWL vocabulary
terms written in RDF/XML and stored at some URI?

> If there is normative force to these files, then issues of change become
> more important.  If there is no, then there is much less impact to any
> change to the files.

This is a different issue and not against the syntax draft, so I
expect Brian will assign it a new issue.

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 07:40:45 GMT

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