W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

response to Brian's rdfs review

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:40:40 -0500 (EST)
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0211090929030.19726-100000@tux.w3.org>

Going thru the critical comments

(1) yes, I believe Guha agreed to have his name on this (am seeking
explicit confirmation)

(2) After the table in the 'RDF Schema Overview' section, you ask:
rdf:List? I'm not quites ure what you are doing here. Picking out the
vocabulary from the older specs beforing adding in the new? Is that

...I should have been clearer in my message on friday. That table is
machine-generated from the RDFS namespace document. I asked for WG help in
getting the text for the RDF/XML version correct first; I'll then rebuild
the table.

Regarding ordering, yes I just added in rdfs:Datatype in the prose after
Property, and the new List stuff after the existing (and Recommended)
container machinery. Unless someone is going to write a
compare-and-contrast as to which is best used when, I'm happy with this.
Are we depracating the old containers? I didn't think so.

(3) 'rdf:_1, etc rdf:first, rdf:next, rdf:nil'
see previous; when the definitions are done i'll rebuild the table.
rdf:_1 ... is an interesting case. These are _not_ mentioned in the
rdf/xml schema but I guess should be mentioned here. Also 'nil' is neither
a class nor property, so doesn't fit in either table. I suggest adding a
separate paragraph for the latter, and adding rdf:_1 by hand.

(4) [[
They are not self denoting. The class rdfs:Literal respresents the class
of literal values such as strings and integers.
You are correct. I caught this on paper but missed the edit. Will change.

(5)  "s/predicate/object/"  Good catch. Will fix.

Your other purple and green comments share a lot with my paper-based
editorial notes which I didn't get to this week. I think the critical
comments are fixable by monday; can't commit to getting to the other
stuff. You've mostly flagged up broken things rather than missing stuff as
'critical', yet below you talk about missing things. Is it mostly the
(script-generated) summary table?


On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Brian McBride wrote:

> I've just been through the schema document.  There are important technical
> bits missing.  Since the point of this WD was to get all the technical bits
> in there, as is, it does not meet its goals.
> Dan, is there anything we can do to get this ready in time.
> Brian
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 09:41:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC