- From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:30:31 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> Er... we have a normative RDF/XML syntax. That's not > at issue here. So, the normative RDF/XML syntax defines the OWL tags? -----Original Message----- From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:33 PM To: Smith, Michael K Cc: Jim Hendler; webont Subject: RE: LANG: Proposal to close issue 5.17 - XML syntax On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 15:24, Smith, Michael K wrote: > > The one thing I find odd about this is that our documents are using examples > that depend on an XML syntax. Er... we have a normative RDF/XML syntax. That's not at issue here. What's at issue here is a non-normative XML presentation syntax. > What mechanism are we going to use to ensure > document consistency if we leave this for some future time? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 18:30:39 UTC