- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:25:18 -0400
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:52 AM 8/6/2003 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >I have attached such a draft. Looks good, Brian. (I didn't review it for completeness.) > It is a cut down version of rdfs.rdf with: > > - a new comment inserted to describe the document Why not put that text inside a dc:description property? >It uses only syntax defined in M&S, specifically, xml:base is not used. Ralph considered this important, at least until we get to rec. Yes, since you want to keep the original namespace name I feel that it would be inappropriate to use new syntax in any RDF content at that namespace URI until at least Proposed Rec. >Differences from the document at currently at the rdf namespace URI are: > > - labels are included for all terms > - the comments are consistent with those used in RDFS.rdf and the current specs > - an Owl ontology element has been added > - the list vocabulary rdf:List, rdf:nil, rdf:first and rdf:rest has been added > - the rdf:XMLLiteral class has been added. > - domain and ranges for rdf:value are specified for all properties > - there is an rdfs:subClassOf property for all classes > - there is an rdfs:isDefinedBy property for all terms All good things to have added. We didn't do it in the original content as RDFS wasn't available to us at the time. Thanks very much for doing this task, Brian.
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 14:26:23 UTC