- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:34:26 -0700
- To: <dims@apache.org>, <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>
The WG decided to close this issue with no action. We believe the term is correct, that we're talking about the value of the [relationship] property. We could (and in other places do) talk more abstractly about relationship types. Mixing these notations as "[relationship] type" seems to mix these two ideas, and instead conveys the type of the relationship property, which we define elsewhere as an IRI. We'll assume this is acceptable to you if we don't hear from you in two weeks. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws- > addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Davanum Srinivas > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:31 PM > To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > Subject: [Editorial][Core] Table 3-1 > > > Should "Table 3-1. Predefined [relationship] values" say "Table 3-1. > Predefined [relationship] types"? > > -- dims > > -- > Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/ >
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 20:50:26 UTC