- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:31:12 -0500
- To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Cc: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 04:09:52PM +0100, Guus Schreiber wrote: > >ISSUE-27 [1] was resolved in April 2011 as follows: > > > > Resolution at Amsterdam FTF: Close ISSUE-27, not marking rdf:value as > > archaic, but with the understand that the modeling advice in RDF Primer > > will be revisited. > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-04-14#resolution_3 > > > >Inasmuch as discussion of rdf:value takes up almost two pages [2] in the > >current primer [3], the new primer should perhaps at least acknowledge > >rdf:value and provide a sentence or two of follow-up explanation. > > > >Alternatively, if space in the Primer is at a premium, perhaps a mention could > >be squeezed into rdf-new (which should perhaps be referenced from the Primer). > > As we resolved to remove refs to the old Primer I copied the the > rdf:value example into the relevant section of RDF Schema [1]. Would > that suffice? Yes - IMO including the example in RDF Schema does suffice. I note, however, that removing refs to the old Primer leaves the mention of a "2004 version" in [1] unexplained. This could perhaps be addressed without drawing too much attention to the superseded primer simply by adding a few words to [1], along with a reference to Primer 1.0 [2], or at least with a clickable link. Tom [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-primer/index.html#changes [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-primer/index.html#informative-references > Guus > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html#ch_value > > > > >Tom > > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/27 > >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#rdfvalue > >[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/ > > -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 17:31:48 UTC