- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 20:58:47 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, "R. V. Guha" <guha@guha.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> Thanks for the detailed work. In summary, was that a thumbs up to
publish
> (modulo correction of detail) or a thumbs down.
that's indeed a nice review
I have read the document by now (and also Graham's review)
and I would say "thumbs up"
in 2.1 I'm not conviced that names should be anything
else but urirefs
also in there, why not take decimals as in xsd:decimal?
and is a Relation with an extension which is the
empty set forbidden?
function terms are indeed interesting
in 2.3 can one say that f(y,x1,...,xn) means f(x1,...,xn) =y
again, "the name Relation to denote the property of having
a relational extension" could that be the empty set?
if E is: | then I(E) is:
-----------------------------------------------
... |
a special name | ISN(E)
^
that the language is compact is indeed interesting
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 14:59:29 UTC