- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:15:03 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I had understood that we did not have comments in owl.rdf because of logical worries of some members of the group ... (i.e. that the rdfs:comment fields are not normatively true). This would also hold for a rdfs:seeAlso or a dc:source I am neutral. It would be possible to use an XML comment without these problems. Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan Connolly > Sent: 18 July 2003 19:35 > To: www-webont-wg@w3.org > Subject: helping folks read the OWL schema > > > > Mike, > > In case somebody finds an OWL document > and follows the namespace pointer to get > clues about the terms, > could you please add a pointer to the OWL > specs from the OWL schema? use rdfs:seeAlso > or dc:source or some such. > > Also, In order to make it > http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl > more readable, I suggest adding > a stylesheet link: > > <?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/rdfs2html.xsl" > type="application/xml"?> > > For some examples of how this works, see > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/email > http://www.w3.org/2002/01/bookmark > http://www.w3.org/2001/02pd/rec54 > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > >
Received on Monday, 21 July 2003 05:18:03 UTC