- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:28:09 +0100
- To: "Dave Beckett <dave.beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> > ... in keeping with the conventions for object and property names? > > It isn't a class; or at least it wasn't till this week; it now might > be rdf:type rdf:List. Can we batch up all these proposed renamings > and terms moving namespaces? > > I've seen: > rdfs:XMLLiteral (rdf:type rdfs:Class) to rdf:XMLLiteral > rdfs:Datatype (rdf:type rdfs:Class) to rdf:Datatype > rdf:nil (rdf:type rdf:List) to rdf:Nil > > I want to see compelling reasons to do any or all of these proposed > changes. So far, I'm not convinced. I thouhgt DanC gave a good reason to use rdf:XMLLiteral so I switched to that one (sorry Pat, forgot to mention that in my recent e-mail message Re: rdfs closures) I don't see reasons to change rdfs:Datatype and rdf:nil -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 17:28:43 UTC