- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 06:15:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > A quick reply to one of pat's questions and then a list of review comments. > > > ?? Can you say why XML Schema is nonmonotonic?? > > default attributes in the syntax > > === > > I mark my comments as "MUST" "PREFER" "EDIT" to indicate my level of > commitment to them. > > > Status > ====== > > [[[ > These include requirements that... > > The RDF Core group must take into account the various formalizations of RDF > that have been proposed since the publication of the RDF Model and Syntax > Recommendation. The group is encouraged to make use both of formal > techniques and implementation-led test cases throughout their work. > The RDF schema system must provide an extensibility mechanism to allow > future work (for example on Web Ontology and logic-based Rule languages) to > provide richer facilities. > > This document addresses these two requirements. It does not present an RDF > Core WG design for Semantic Web layering. Rather, it documents a technique > we are exploring to describe the semantics of the RDF Core specifications. > The RDF Core WG solicit feedback from other Working Groups and from the RDF > implementor community on the wider applicability of this technique. > ]]] > > MUST: > replace "This document address these two requirements." with > <<< > These two requirements are primarily addressed by the RDF Model Theory > (ref) and the RDF Test Cases (ref). > > This document describes an alternative complimentry approach. > >>> I wrote the status section. Per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0256.html I propose a simpler change: s/This document addresses these two requirements./ This document is motivated by these two requirements./ Does that satisfy your concern? Dan
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 06:15:22 UTC