- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 29 Oct 2002 16:02:50 -0600
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: michael.smith@eds.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 12:38, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com> > Subject: RE: Guide: Legal syntax? > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:14:35 -0600 > > > Agreed. Will use Peter's prefered version, modified to use 'about'. > > Is there really (still) a single-ID requirement? I believe so; the test cases editor's draft agrees: "Issue: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about has 2 tests" http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/error1.rdf -- http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/ > I see wording to that could be interpreted to have this effect in the new > syntax document. I'm not sure which one you mean; I haven't been following that one very closely... > However, the wording is, in my opinion, very poorly > written, so much so that interpreting it as a single-ID requirement > requires knowing that there is such a requirement. The test case makes it pretty clear to me. If you can think of ways to improve the syntax document, please send them to www-rdf-comments. > peter -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 17:02:35 UTC