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

Re: first cut at proposing closure for the RDFCore legacy issue list

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:53:24 +0100
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
Message-Id: <97557E0E-B330-4F70-8733-53844D907389@cyganiak.de>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Nice work Dan.

On 14 Apr 2011, at 14:18, Dan Brickley wrote:
> 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

Propose to CLOSE instead. This is a long-known problem in RDF/XML, users have learned to live with it, there is no easy fix, and updating from URIrefs to IRIs is unlikely to change anything here.

> 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.

Propose to CLOSE instead, noting that it was ruled out of scope for this WG because the pre-WG process showed that a change would draw significant resistance from a number of implementers and users.

> 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?

Propose to CLOSE instead, same argument as above.

> 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.

Yes, RDF Concepts should say something about this. It seems important for RDFa. I raised it as a new issue:

Propose to CLOSE the old issue as a duplicate of the new ISSUE-37.

+1 to all other resolutions as proposed.

Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 18:53:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC