[closed] Re: Issue pfps-24 What is RDF Schema?

per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0223.html
and the RDFCore WG decision of June 6th[1], this is closed and moved to the 
RDF Schema editorial todo list. Peter, I'll let you know when the doc is 
updated to reflect the fix as agreed in 


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0067.html

* Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-03-21 14:24+0000]
> Recorded as
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-24
> Brian
> At 08:26 21/03/2003 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >Peter,
> >
> >Thanks for your Last Call review comment on RDF Schema in
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0149.html
> >
> >Sorry I'm late with these responses. You ask 'what is RDF schema?' and
> >note that the specification appears unclear on this. Rather than treat this
> >as an editorial fixup, I think it best that the RDFCore WG treat this
> >as formal issue.
> >Brian, could you create a LC open issue entry for this?
> >
> >Aside:
> >I think this is related to the 'rename RDF Schema?' issue,
> >ie. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#webont-01
> >in that as we've moved towards calling this a 'vocabulary description
> >language', rather than 'RDF Schema', there is less tendency towards
> >using the noun form, ie. we find ourselves asking what the RDFS/RDFVDL
> >language is (answer: a semantic extension of RDF), rather
> >than what _an_ RDF Schema is.
> >
> >Anyway, I agree that we could be clearer on this in the spec.
> >
> >Thanks for your careful attention,
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >Dan

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 09:52:25 UTC