- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:55:41 +0100
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:53:10 -0400 Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org> wrote: > Dave Beckett wrote: > > > 2003-10-03 RDFCore WG meeting > > > > snip > > > > ACTION 2003-10-03#8 frankm change primer to have an omitted rdf:RDF example > > > Not quite. I accepted an action to reflect the optionality of rdf:RDF > in the Primer. It seems silly, given all the examples currently in the > Primer, to have yet another example just to omit the rdf:RDF. What I > propose to do is to comment, at the point where rdf:RDF is introduced, > that the enclosing rdf:RDF element is optional in situations where the > XML can be identified as RDF/XML by context (but it doesn't hurt to > provide it anyway), and to see the Syntax document for further details. OK. I've done the same in the editor's draft of rdf/xml - mentioned it when I gave the 'full example' and used rdf:RDF for the first time. Dave
Received on Monday, 6 October 2003 06:58:26 UTC