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: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:18:33 +0200
Message-Id: <AA962A3B-DE1B-4C64-94B7-55591430310A@talis.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
On Apr 15, 2011, at 20:53, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:

> 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
>> RDF/XML."
> 
> 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.

Concur.


> 
>> 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.


Propose to CONTINUE.  This was discussed at the Workshop and didn't make the cut for this WG, but I suspect we will continue to hear about it (especially since TimBL has expressed his thoughts).


> 
>> 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.

Concur to close.


> 
>> 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:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/37
> 
> Propose to CLOSE the old issue as a duplicate of the new ISSUE-37.


Concur.


> 
> +1 to all other resolutions as proposed.

I still need to carefully review the others, so don't take this email as complete from me.  Thanks.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Best,
> Richard
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 19:18:26 GMT

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