Re: rdf:value in Primer? (re: ISSUE-27)

On 13-12-13 18:31, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 04:09:52PM +0100, Guus Schreiber 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?
>
> Yes - IMO including the example in RDF Schema does suffice.
>
> I note, however, that removing refs to the old Primer leaves the mention of a
> "2004 version" in [1] unexplained.  This could perhaps be addressed without
> drawing too much attention to the superseded primer simply by adding a few
> words to [1], along with a reference to Primer 1.0 [2], or at least with a
> clickable link.

Thanks for the suggestion. Will do that.
Guus

>
> Tom
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-primer/index.html#changes
> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-primer/index.html#informative-references
>
>> 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 Saturday, 14 December 2013 13:29:57 UTC