- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 14:24:30 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, brian_mcbride@hp.com
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 Friday, 21 March 2003 09:23:35 UTC