W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2002

comments on 18 July 2002 version of reference document

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:40:14 -0400
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020718144014M.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

Now that rdf:parseType="daml:collection" is replaced by
rdf:parseType="Collection", there probably needs to be a pointer to the RDF
Core WG decision on this, and maybe even an end note.  The best place to
put it would probably be in the enumerations section, where there is an
example of a collection.

Comments on Appendix C:

Suggested change:  Change the first rdf:Description to owl:Ontology.  It
	   is indeed the case that this is so, from the first description
	   in the ``importing terms'' piece of the document.  

Editorial change needed:  There is one use of daml:collection that needs to
	  be changed to Collection.

Change needed: The List terminology should all be removed, as this will be
	in RDF.

Suggested change: Remove the note in imports.  This kind of caveat belongs
	in the main document, if anywhere; but not here.

Suggested change: Remove the importation near the end of the document.  It
	is redundant, except for the Ontology portion, which I propose be
	moved to the beginning of the document.

PROPOSAL:  Remove all the rdf and rdfs sameXxxAs stuff.  The wrong decision
	was made in DAML+OIL on this.  

	Should this proposal be an ISSUE?  I guess so, and will raise the
	issue.  It would be great if this issue could be resolved by next
	week, but I don't expect that to happen.  
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 14:40:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT