- From: Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:35:04 -0400
- To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Kendall Clark wrote: >Folks, > >Unless I miss my guess dramatically, we'll be asked to vote on the >UC&R draft during our telcon this week. That being said, the present >draft is very stable -- unchanged since last Thursday: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases > >IIRC, you should find >= 1.89 there. > > > Document is looking very good. Congratulations. Minor editorial comments follows: -Section 2.1: Motivates hyper link not resolved -Section 2.2: User-specifiable Serialization not resolved Comments on Variants Prefer 3.4 over 3.4a -Prefer 4.6a to 4.6 b -3.6 Optional Match. Neither wording is clear enough for me to understand the intent. -Prefer 3.10a over 3.10. This is not just difference in wording but difference in underlying requirements. -Prefer 4.6a over 4.6b. Is the intent that other semantic languages are an RDF dialect? If so we should say it explicitly. If not, then I question why it is a requirement for DAWG. Thanks again for the good work. -- Regards, Farrukh
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2004 09:35:37 UTC