Re: proposed closure of pfps-06 typed XML literals and LV

In the absence of specific indications of exactly what has been changed, I
will go out on a limb and indicate that I believe that the last versions of
the RDF documents that I have read have an internally consistent treatment
of XML Literals.  

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

PS:  Yes, you should read a lack of utter satisfaction with the process
     into the qualifications above.

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: proposed closure of pfps-06 typed XML literals and LV
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:58:41 +0100

> Peter,
> 
> This message concerns your last call comment on the RDF semantics 
> document we have labelled pfps-06 [1]
> 
> The RDFCore WG had previously indicated [2] that it was accepting this 
> comment, but, as you pointed out [3] there remained errors in the documents.
> 
> In your message [4] you indicated that had not heard further from the 
> WG.  I understand that these errors have now be corrected and that the 
> current editors drafts of concepts [5] and semantics [6] should now 
> correctly address your comment.
> 
> I would be grateful if you would reply, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org 
> indicating whether your comment has been acceptably addressed.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-06
> 
> [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0044.html
> 
> [3] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0051.html
> 
> [4] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0354.html
> 
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/
> 
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 10:05:16 UTC