- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:58:45 -0500
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, "jos.deroo.jd" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
* Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> [2003-01-28 11:29+0000] > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > This is a last call comment concerning the test case schema > > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/testSchema > > > > which I am making wearing the hat of an OWL Test Case editor. > > > > (Sorry I should have made this comment earlier). > > > > Within OWL Tests we reuse the RDF testSchema. > > Unfortunately the rdfs:comment-s within it, do not foresee such reuse. For > > example test:issue should be described as relating a test to an issue, rather > > than a test to an RDF Core issue. > > > > Please generalize the comments on the following resources > > test:approval > > test:issue > > test:status > > > > > > e.g. > > > > <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">Indicates the status of the test according to > > RDF Core WG process.</rdfs:comment> > > > > => > > > > <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">Indicates the status of the test within a > > process, such as the RDF Core WG process.</rdfs:comment> > > > > > > Jeremy Carroll, Editor OWL Test Cases > > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test > > I think doing so makes a lot of sense. I need some indication from chair > or process expert as to whether this change should be done immediately > (since the schema lives "outside" the LC WD) or at the end of LC > process. As far as I can see, such a change seems both reasonable and timely. We're not going REC-track with this vocabulary, it's a means to support our ends (like Lbase in that respect, or Dublin Core, if we used DC in any of our RDF files). Unless someone else objects, I reckon 'go for it'... Dan
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 07:04:55 UTC