W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

first cut at proposing closure for the RDFCore legacy issue list

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:18:22 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinOODY7oorgAXPJ6fJhZ3KTTU7nhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
Ok, since I co-chaired the group that left this pile of issues for us
- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#futures - I have made a
quick and informal first pass at proposing closure of many of them. It
hasn't been touched since 2005, so quite a lot of things in the
surrounding landscape have changed (RDFa, POWDER, etc.).

Maybe we should move it into the Wiki? or direct into tracker?

cheers,

Dan



>From "Issues Postponed till a future Version of RDF"
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#futures

rdfms-abouteachprefix: Something should be done about aboutEachPrefix construct

RESOLVE "This has been addressed by the POWDER technology, which
allows descriptive labels to be attached
to resources identified by URI patterns; see
http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/#specs "

rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values: Suggestion that Qnames should be
allowed as values for attributes such as rdf:about.

RESOLVE "There are no plans to revise RDF/XML. The Qnames debate has
continued in other contexts e.g. RDFa, and need not be tracked here."

rdfms-qnames-can't represent-all-uris: The RDF XML syntax cannot
represent all possible Property URI's.

CONTINUE: Noted, RDF/XML does not allow all possible property URIs to
be represented. This issue remains open, while the WG explores the
impact of IRIs on RDF; however
RDF/XML is unlikely to change beyond the basic minimum needed. Other
formats (Turtle, n-triples) are available as alternatives to RDF/XML
where difficult property
names are unavoidable. Vocabulary authors have an incentive to choose
RDF property URIs that will work with all syntaxes, including classic
RDF/XML."

rdfms-quoting: The syntax needs a more convenient way to express the
reification of a statement.

RESOLVE as CLOSED (duplicate): RDF WG is actively investigating
so-called 'named graph' mechanisms and their relationship to
reification.

rdf-equivalent-uri's: Should RDF have a mechanism for declaring two
uri's to be equivalent?

RESOLVE: Closed, owl provides owl:sameAs already.

rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf: RDF embedded in XHTML and other XML
documents is hard to validate.

RESOLVE: close - validation is so 1990s.

rdf-containers-otherapproaches: The design of the RDF Model collection
classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be augmented
with a 'better' design?

RESOLVE: close (duplicate); the WG is already discussing which
ordering mechanisms to mark as archaic, and how these might be
improved.

rdfms-literalsubjects: Should the subjects of RDF statements be
allowed to be literals

CONTINUE: the situation is unclear. In a sense, literals are
resources. Restrictions are largely (but not entirely) syntactic.

rdf-bnode-predicates: Request to allow b-nodes as property labels

CONTINUE: is the abstract syntax / formal semantics already happy with
this? Does it affect ntriples, turtle etc?

rdfms-contexts: Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF.

RESOLVE: close (duplicate); the new WG is exploring this.

rdf-embedded: How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document
is asserted

RESOLVE close - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document
spec, and not ours.

rdfms-assertion: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion.

RESOLVE close: RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be
used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is
making those
assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these
concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by
W3C's new
Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Main_Page - and by
other application vocabularies. See also
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter
for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF.

rdfxml-literals-in-collections: RDF collection syntax should allow literals.

RESOLVE: CLOSED No plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the
collection mechanism at this time.

rdfs-lang-vocab: request for a richer vocabularly for languages

RESOLVE: Close - not considered a duty of the core RDF WG.

rdfs-fyi: A request for a semantics free predicate for comments.

RESOLVE: Close - consider this a 3rd-party opportunity. No need for
the RDF WG to create this.

rdfs-layered-subset: A request to define subset of RDFS with a more
conventional layered architecture

RESOLVE: CONTINUE to bear this in mind as Semantics are revised /
improved based on deployment experience.

rdf-mapping-lists-and-containers: A request to define a formal
semantic relationship between lists and containers.

RESOLVE: Close - no plans to do this. Containers are largely
considered legacy / archaic now, and are deployed in a variety of
styles so mapping is not possible.

rdfms-syntax-incomplete: The RDF/XML syntax can't represent an an
arbritary graph structure.

RESOLVE: Noted. No plans to substantially change RDF/XML.

rdf-fragids-in-embedded-rdf: Defining the interpretation of fragment
identifiers in RDF embedded in other document formats.

RESOLVE: Continue (editorial) - the specs should probably mention this
somewhere.

rdf-plain-and-xml-literals: An XML literal without markup, e.g. "foo"
should denote the same thing as the plain literal "foo".

RESOLVE: Close (duplicate) - currently under discussion in RDF WG>

test-manifest-semantics: The test cases manifest format has a semantic error.

RESOLVE: Continue - we should take a look
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 13:18:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT