- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:37:00 -0500
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: brian_mcbride@hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi Peter, You raise a last call review comment on RDF Schema (and RDF Semantics) in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0124.html ...noting that there are apparent divergences between these two specifications. Thanks for the careful comparision of our documents. To help us track this, I believe we should open an issue on 'schema/semantics divergence' to keep track of this. Brian, could you open an issue please, unless there is another existing issue under which the comments in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0124.html could be filed. I also note editorially that the language in Schema that says '_the_ rdfs:range of ...' may be contentious, since there may well turn out to be other true 'range' assertions about our properties (perhaps asserted by other working groups). Maybe OWL(Full?) already does this? Perhaps we should take more care to write 'an rdfs:range ...' instead of 'the rdfs:range ...'. Thanks again for your comments, Dan
Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 10:37:07 UTC