Re: on RDFS 1.0 031010



Many thanks for your feedback on the RDFS 1.0 Last Call document.

I'm going to take most of your points (1-4) as editorial suggestions,
and do my best to tweak those sentences accordingly to make them
more understandable.

Your 5th point, asking "why dont you start with rdf:_0 like that in Java
or others?", I can only answer by saying "this is what the original 
RDF Schema WG decided". The idea was that the 2nd item is rdf:_2, the 
7th is rdf:_7 etc. While having a "0"th item may be intuitive to 
programmers, RDF data has a wider audience, many of whom would be 
confused by the notion of a "0"th item in a sequence. We had to pick one
design, and chose the current one.

Thanks again for your attention to our work. Please could you reply to
this message to let me know whether this response satisfies your

Many thanks,

Dan Brickley

Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 09:40:51 UTC