Re: Syntax wd

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Hi Dave
> 
> I am writing the response to Nick Efthymiou re
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#efth-01
> and I believe you should have deleted this text:
> [[
> Note (Informative): The Working Group invites feedback from the community on 
> the effects of the removals and additions of these terms on existing 
> implementations and documents and on the costs and benefits of adopting a new 
> namespace URI to reflect this change (currently not proposed by the Working 
> Group). 
> ]]
> 
> in light of 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0207
> RESOLVED:
>    not to change the URI REFS for the RDF and RDFS namespaces
> ACTION: daveb editorial changes reflecting not changing namespace URI

Sigh.  Another action I missed.

I've updated the draft editor's draft (sic) to remove the two
informational notes that mentioned this.  One was in the 5.1
namespace section, the other near where aboutEach* is mentioned in 7.2.5.
Changes to CVS 1.502 at
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

So apart from those two deletions, the 26 June draft of
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/
remains the latest for review.

Dave

Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 03:13:52 UTC