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

Re: Guide: Legal syntax?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 29 Oct 2002 16:02:50 -0600
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: michael.smith@eds.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1035928971.25518.8249.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 12:38, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
> Subject: RE: Guide: Legal syntax?
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:14:35 -0600
> 
> > Agreed. Will use Peter's prefered version, modified to use 'about'.
> 
> Is there really (still) a single-ID requirement?

I believe so; the test cases editor's draft agrees:

"Issue: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about  has 2 tests"
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/error1.rdf
	-- http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/

> I see wording to that could be interpreted to have this effect in the new
> syntax document.

I'm not sure which one you mean; I haven't been following that one
very closely...

>  However, the wording is, in my opinion, very poorly
> written, so much so that interpreting it as a single-ID requirement
> requires knowing that there is such a requirement.

The test case makes it pretty clear to me. If you can
think of ways to improve the syntax document, please
send them to www-rdf-comments.

> peter
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 17:02:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT