- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 15 Jul 2003 12:35:09 -0500
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 11:48, pat hayes 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. > > Done. Section 1.3 now says just before the first semantics table: > > Note that the semantics of RDF does not depend on that of RDFS. The > full semantics of RDF is defined in sections 1 and 3; the full > semantics of RDFS in sections 1, 3 and 4. > > > > >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. > > Does that apply to the semantics doc as well? I wish it did; I wish we had split semantics into RDF semantics and RDFS semantics. But we didn't. So no, RDF semantics should cite RDFS normatively. I think this is a bug. I wish we had time to fix it. I think we do have time to fix it for Concepts; it's a one-line fix. > Pat -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:35:11 UTC