- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:00:18 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, gk@ninebynibe.org, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Seems reasonable on a quick survey. #g -- At 23:05 17/06/03 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Graham, Pat, Patrick, > >Readiong the minutes of the 2nd May I see that I was meant to discuss with >you >the text in msg > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0368 > >I believe the major concern was with the first sentence, and that Pat was >going to suggest a rewording to broaden it. > >I have currently put the text as is in the editors draft at: > >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-Datatypes > >Patrick suggested: >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0006.html > >"The datatype abstraction used in RDF is compatible with > XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes..." > >as the first sentence, which is certainly an improvement. > >Jeremy ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 06:11:40 UTC