- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:09:52 +0100
- To: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 13-12-13 15:47, Thomas Baker wrote: > ISSUE-27 [1] was resolved in April 2011 as follows: > > Resolution at Amsterdam FTF: Close ISSUE-27, not marking rdf:value as > archaic, but with the understand that the modeling advice in RDF Primer > will be revisited. > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-04-14#resolution_3 > > Inasmuch as discussion of rdf:value takes up almost two pages [2] in the > current primer [3], the new primer should perhaps at least acknowledge > rdf:value and provide a sentence or two of follow-up explanation. > > Alternatively, if space in the Primer is at a premium, perhaps a mention could > be squeezed into rdf-new (which should perhaps be referenced from the Primer). As we resolved to remove refs to the old Primer I copied the the rdf:value example into the relevant section of RDF Schema [1]. Would that suffice? Guus [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html#ch_value > > Tom > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/27 > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#rdfvalue > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/ >
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 15:10:26 UTC