Fwd: pfps-18,19,20,21 namespace v vocabulary

Oops,

I forgot to copy the original to rdf comments.

Brian
>Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:15:13 +0000
>To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
>From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Subject: pfps-18,19,20,21 namespace v vocabulary
>
>Peter,
>
>You made a last call comment which was recorded as a series of separate 
>comments against different documents:
>
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-17
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-18
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-19
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-20
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-21
>
>In your response to the RDFCore WG's resolution of pfps-17
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0505.html
>
>you accepted the WG's resolution and indicated that a similar resolution 
>was acceptable for the other documents.
>
>Regarding the comments against the other docs pfps-18,19,20,21, the 
>RDFCore WG has resolved:
>
>[[ o throughout the docs
>     - the term [xml namespace] be used to refer to xml namespaces
>     - the term [vocabulary] be used to refer to collections of names
>       (RDF URI References]
>  o the editors update their docs accordingly
>  o bwm responds to pfps for all these issues
>]]
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0124.html
>
>Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating 
>whether this decision is acceptable.
>
>Brian McBride

Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 08:07:46 UTC