- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 11 Jul 2003 16:42:32 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 16:18, Graham Klyne wrote: > Until now, I've understood that, as a working group, we've been moving > toward defining RDF *and* RDFS, without being particularly concerned about > layering the defining documents. Not so; I was very concerned about this in my Nov 2002 review of RDF concepts: "<CRITICAL>...the normative documentation of RDF doesn't include RDFS" -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0001.html and you accepted the comment. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0076.html > I think it's rather late in the day to > start backing away from this position. On the contrary, it's rather late to start mixing them. > Lacking some more compelling rationale, I'm inclined to decline this request. I hope you find this compelling. > #g > -- > > At 09:59 11/07/03 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > >Please keep links from concepts to [RDF-VOCABULARY] > >informative, and add a note to semantics that > >while it specifies both languages, it completely > >specifies RDF without reference to RDFS. > > > >In particular, strike the 2nd bullet under > >"4. RDF Core URI Vocabulary and Namespaces (Normative)" > >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-URIspaces > > > >http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# (conventionally associated with > >namespace prefix rdfs:) > > > >and move the [RDF-VOCABULARY] citation from the list of > >normative references to the informative references. > > > >-- > >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 17:46:27 UTC