- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:47:41 +0000
- To: 20030128.142921.88486202.pfps@research.bell-labs.com, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: brian_mcbride@hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Recorded as: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-25 Brian At 10:37 21/03/2003 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote: >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 Monday, 24 March 2003 11:47:57 UTC