W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Publish RDF Concepts as revised WD? (was: Re: Agenda 16 May telecon)

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:17:02 +0100
Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3E8D4511-1B9E-463D-AAB8-3832F4EA690C@garlik.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
On 2012-05-15, at 21:26, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> I have to send regrets for tomorrow; travelling.
> 
> On 15 May 2012, at 17:13, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>> the Turtle LC draft
> 
> If I was present, my votes would be:
> 
> ±0 to @prefix/PREFIX
> +1 to ISSUE-19
> -1 to barewords
> Abstain from proposal to publish as LC (did not have a chance to read it in detail recently)

I'm

-1 to @prefix/PREFIX if . becomes optional, ±0 otherwise
+1 to ISSUE-19 ([ predicate list … ])
-1 to barewords

>> and the RDF Concepts WD.
> 
> Regarding ISSUE-63, HTML datatype: I think this is a Good Thing and will be popular. The most contentious point is the definition of the value space. It appears complex (DOM DocumentFragment nodes), but in reality it makes implementation of conforming parser *simpler* because it allows them to produce any of a number of equivalent results. The complexity only affects systems that decide to implement value-based comparison for HTML literals, something that is entirely optional. I expect few or no systems to do it.

I see limited utility in being able to do = comparisons on non-lexically identical HTML5 fragments. But I may well be missing some important usecases.

- Steve

> Regarding the two XSD datatype issues:
> • PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-87 without further action
> • PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-88 by adding xsd:duration to the list of supported XSD datatypes in RDF 1.1
> 
> I have reviewed the value spaces of all the date and time datatypes, and they all have clearly defined value spaces (usually tuples of numbers) with clearly defined equality functions. That's all we need for RDF.
> 
> The reasons why OWL rejected some of them is basically that OWL's model for time can't handle repeating or partially-ordered datetime specifications. This is no problem for RDF, we only need equality.
> 
> The agenda asks:
> 
> [[
> Are we ready for a PROPOSAL to publish RDF Concepts as revised WD?
> ]]
> 
> Yes, we are. I consider the ED complete, except for the nine issues called out in yellow boxes throughout the document:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html
> 
> I would prefer resolving ISSUE-63 and ISSUE-88 before publishing, but would consider the document ready even if we can't have that.
> 
> If there is a chance that we can get a resolution on a couple of the low-hanging non-controversial graph issues in the next week or two, then I'd be happy to delay publication to wait for that. By far the biggest remaining yellow box is the one on multigraph abstract syntax, and it would be a bit embarrassing if there was no progress whatsoever to report since the last WD from August 2011.
> 
>> I will be adding an item on the "progress on Graphs discussion", but it is not likely we will have much time to spend on it.
> 
> If there is some time for that, then why not make some visible progress by resolving some issues? My proposal is still on the table:
> 
> 
> PROPOSAL: The abstract syntax for working with multiple graphs in RDF consists of a default graph and zero or more pairs of IRI and graph. This resolves ISSUE-5 (“no”), ISSUE-22 (“yes”), ISSUE-28 (“no”), ISSUE-29 (“yes”), ISSUE-30 (“they are isomorphic”), ISSUE-33 (“no”).
> 
> 
> Best,
> Richard

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 12:17:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT