- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:11:19 +0100
- To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <492E7247.9070106@inf.unibz.it>
a few comments on [1]: - (I asked this question before but did not get an answer) why "intended domain"? shouldn't this be just "domain"? - I don't understand the purpose of the second editor's note in section 3.3.12. If the description of the relationship with some SPARQL function is desirable, this should be in the main text, not in an editor's note. Such a note should probably point out the difference with the SPARQL function. There is no requirement on DLB that it should "emulate" SPARQL functions. - Analogous to the comparison predicates for functions, the comparison predicates for text should also be marked as "under discussion" - in the specification of these comparison predicates, pred:text-compare is not defined and pred:compare is not defined on values of text [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/draft/ED-rif-dtb-20081125/#Predicates_on_rdf:text -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar. - Donald Foster
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2008 10:11:32 UTC