- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:06:01 +0100
- To: <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>
Hi Graham, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part Issues which are ours: ====================== rdfms-assertion rdf-charmod-uris rdf-namespace-change (?) rdfms-identity-anon-resources rdfms-graph rdfms-literalsubjects rdfms-uri-substructure rdfms-xmllang rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure rdfms-identity-of-statements rdf-charmod-literals M&S section intro: 1, 2.1, para60 (deleted property namespace) html embedding para75 graph: 5 namespace p196 beginning xml-literals p203 note uris p204 literals para216-220 xml:lnag para 221 Issues which are to do with vocab: ================================== rdfms-boolean-valued-properties rdfms-names-use rdfms-fragments rdfms-replace-value rdf;value 2.2.3 2.3 containers para 90 91 3.5 reification para 135, 4.1 reserved vocab para 223 acknowledgements 8. Issues which might be ours: =========================== rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf (own) rdf-equivalent-representations (not important) appendix B transporting RDF (drop?) Looking at schema it is very cut down and does not describe any semantics for containers and/or reification. Hence I suggest we should own taking the M&S text forward under issues to do with vocab, unless the schema or series editors deem otherwise. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 21 June 2002 11:06:33 UTC