RE: Issues list - delayed message

Regarding the xml:lang, I don't think it is a bug. I always thought that it
would be a characteristic of the string (the literal value), and since M+S
did not really address primitive data types, it wouldn't have to be
concerned of xml:lang either.

How do we propose adding it? As a qualification of the actual property
value?

Regards,

	- Ora

--
Ora Lassila, <ora.lassila@nokia.com>
Research Manager
Agent Technology, Nokia Research Center / Boston
+1 (781) 993-4603 (please note new email & phone number!)


> ----------
> From: 	EXT Tim Berners-Lee
> Sent: 	Thursday, April 6, 2000 20:20
> To: 	sw99@w3.org
> Subject: 	Issues list - delayed message
> 
> (I found this in a window I had not gotten around to pressing send on)
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> Danbri,
> 
> 
> Kudos for getting going on this.
> 
> It is good to give credit where credit is due for issued, and not always
> jut
> to point to the director as well!
> 
> - XML lang not being in the model  was brought up by Sergey
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Jan/0053.html
> Thoiugh that suggests adding itto the model rather than removing it from
> th
> esyntax.
> Folks,xml:lang is not represented in the RDF model according to RDF M&S
> 1.0,
> which is IMO a bug in the specs.
> 
> 
> - The issue of Alt, Bag and Seq being searated out from the basic model is
> brought up in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Feb/0115.html for
> example.
> 
> 
> - Issue: need for "poorest man" serializeion
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Feb/0115.html
> As a next step I'd like to have a "poorest man" RDF/XML
> serialization:<rdf>
>   <triple subject="[URI]" predicate="[URI]" object="[URI]"/>
>   <triple subject="[URI]" predicate="[URI]">[PDCATA]</triple>  ...</rdf>
> 
> 
> These may not be the first occurrences.  But I think all the issued I
> pulled
> out I pulled out of previous messages.  pointers to the first raising we
> can
> find would be a godo idea.
> 
> As regards state, I think we can do a broader categorization.
> 
> - Bug fix, propose for 1.1  (ml lang, some reference issues?)
> - Simplification (like removing PICS bits, aabouteachprefix, lang, etc).
> Doesn't affect other features => wait to see if IG wanst tto start an
> action
> to do them
> - Syntax change which can be done back-compatibly with existing syntax =>
> suggest trials with software.
> 
> Or something like that. Then we concldue, there are only 2 bugs and there
> is
> a consensus for a version 1.5, but we need to work on x and y at teh IG
> level. O
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 6 April 2000 20:25:23 UTC