- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 20:23:06 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
forgot to mention: this discharges ACTION-241 Axel On 18 May 2010, at 17:54, Axel Polleres wrote: > Chime, all, > > I suggest to mark the URI for rif imports and namespace used still with an editor's note in section 7.1. > Both, > 1) I am not 100% happy with using the entailment namespace (http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/) which seems to indicate that this is a URI defining an entailment regime > 2) the rif:imports abbreviation seems to indicate that we mean the rif: namespace (http://www.w3.org/2007/rif) > > So, I suggest we add an Ednote just saying: > > "The namespace and URI used for rif:imports is still under discussion with in the group" > > for now. > > P.S.: Talked to the RIF guys today again in the RIF TC, they obviously want to review the doc (especially in case we reuse the rif: namespace) > I am personally not so fond anymore of reusing the RIF namespace, since - as rif:imports has no semantics in RIF - that might be misleading.
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 19:23:41 UTC