Re: rdf:text review

On 28 Apr 2009, at 10:32, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
[snip]
>> I've had some conversation with Boris about Andy's comments and he
>> was thinking that not much,
>
> It's hardly a lot of changes but the use of the entailment  
> extension point should go in the rdf:text doc as should the  
> prohibition (if that's what we want to propose) on appearing in  
> SPARQL results.
>
>> if any changes were actually needed to rif:text.
>
> :-)
>
>> It would be good to get clear on this *before* sending
>> comments. Perhaps, Axel, Andy, Boris and I could telcon at some  
>> point?
>
> This is to be a WG response,

I hope I'm not suggesting otherwise.

> not my personal comments and I note Steve is also reviewing the text.

Be good to have steve it.

> Could the comments go to the WG list?

I was merely suggesting that a task force between actively engaged  
people might help clarify issues. In particular, I'm not as actively  
engaged as would make me a good substitute for, e.g., Boris.

Cheers,
Bijan.