- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:04:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote: > >>Not for discussion this telecon, but here's my proposal on > >>rdfs:ConstraintResource and rdfs:ConstraintProperty: we drop them from the > >>specification. > > > >I wholeheartedly agree. > > I agree excellent. Does anybody disagree? If so please let the WG mailing list know before our next teleconf. As one of the guilty parties behind the RDFS 1.0 spec, and this bit in particular, I have to say: we got rdfs:ConstraintResource *wrong*. (Sorry!) It was a nice idea, to try to give some categories for likely RDFS extensions so that 1.0 processors weren't _entirely_ suprised by future revisions of the spec. But the notion that schema language constructs were either 'constraining' or 'unconstraining' was incoherent. The idea of this all being used for data validation was, I think, taking up much more of our attention than it does now. Anyway, as I say: we goofed. Let's drop the feature and move on. Dan
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 19:04:44 UTC