- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 10:51:01 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Er, this particular original comment was with respect the vocabulary draft. I can't see anything in Concepts that is affected here: [[ Vocabulary terms in the rdf: namespace are listed in section 5.1 of the RDF syntax specification [RDF-SYNTAX]. Vocabulary terms defined in the rdfs: namespace are defined in the RDF schema vocabulary specification [RDF-VOCABULARY]. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-URIspaces By WG consent, the Concepts document does not list rdf: or rdfs: vocabulary terms. ... (I'm slowly catching up a big backlog of work; I've noted the other comments but am not yet ready to consider them in depth.) #g -- At 02:21 PM 1/2/03 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >Graham, Jeremy, > >I'm suggesting this is one for you guys. > >[...] > > >> > [[The RDF specifications define the following classes.]] >> > >> > > The Concepts document claims otherwise. >> > >What does it mean that the core RDF specifications define a class? What >> > >does it mean for a thing to be described by RDF? >> > >> > I really have no idea what you are getting at here. Is there some more >> > specific way you can make this comment? >> >>Concepts states that >> Vocabulary terms in the rdf: namespace are defined in section 5.1 >> of the RDF syntax specification. >>but you include several terms form the rdf: namespace in your list. > >I think we mean here that the names in the namespace are defined in syntax >5.1 (which I'm feeling is the wrong place, but it'll do), not that they >are 'defined' in the syntax doc. > >What do you think? > >Brian ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 06:54:05 UTC