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

Re: more comments Re: top-level Comment on lBase

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>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0210250612400.21521-100000@tux.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.
> ]]]
> 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?

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 06:15:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:16 UTC