- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:45:20 -0400
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
* Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-08-06 15:32+0100] > > > Dan Brickley wrote: > >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/#ch_list > > > >Per http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-11 > >"Lists are not well formed" the RDFS spec now has reworded text for > >the collections vocab, following Peter's suggestion. > > > >See > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0277.html > >for the discussion that led to this text. > > > >I need some advice: > > > > - what we agreed w/ Peter was text for 'rdf:first' and the assumption > > that similar changes would be needed for 'at least' rdf:List, > > rdf:rest. > > > > - I've tried to make such changes, could do with a sanity check > > especially rdf:nil seems awkward. > > This looked ok to me. I did find the note at the end of the intro to > 5.2 awkward, but have failed in my attempt to write something better. Thanks for reviewing this. Yes, it is somewhat graceless, but I couldn't figure a way of expanding on it without opening the RDF/OWL layering wormcan... cheers, Dan
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 10:45:21 UTC