- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 08:37:14 -0400
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dave Beckett wrote: > 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. > Makes sense to me. --Frank
Received on Monday, 6 October 2003 08:10:55 UTC