- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 10:03:54 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 00:56 03/01/2003 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: >On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 21:30, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > Hi: > > > > What is the status of > > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns > > http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema > > Are they normative parts of the RDF specifications? > >I believe the latter is a normative part of the RDFS >spec; i.e. its contents are part of the tech report. Yes. >That's not the case for the former. > > > I don't see how, because > > > > 1/ Neither of them are valid in the RDF Model Theory or the RDFS model > theory. > >No? >What leads you to that conclusion? > >The model theory spec defines validity of inferences; what >does it mean for a document to be valid? Oh... do you >mean that they're not entailed by the empty graph? > >Good point; I think that's a bug, for RDFS; i.e. the >rdfs:comment's and such need to be consistent in >the 01/rdf-schema file and the text of the RDFS spec; Danbri picked up on that. The current drafts of both have the rdfs:comment's identical. Brian
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 05:02:40 UTC