- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: 15 Jul 2003 13:21:12 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 22:18, 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. I think it's rather late in the day to > start backing away from this position. > > Lacking some more compelling rationale, I'm inclined to decline this request. Graham, I suggest Dan has a point. If schema were to be updated and the namespace changed, It doesn't seem appropriate to have to update the concepts document as well. Schema already defines the namespace; is there a need to define it twice? Re - moving the reference to informative - are there any normative references to schema in the document? Could
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 08:23:13 UTC