W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

On F2F Decisions

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:25:08 -0500
Message-Id: <200108101427.f7AERMi05680@theinfo.org>
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend part of the meeting, 
however I hope that doesn't prevent me from making comments on 
the decisions you came to.

On rdfs-versioning:

> The WG decided to close this issue without action since it is a 
> known problem that is very hard to solve and is outside the 
> scope of this WG.

I strongly, vehemently, totally disagree with this decision. 
This is a simple matter. As I wrote in:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-
comments/2001JanMar/0047.html

> The RDFS spec states: "this specification recommends that a new 
> namespace
> URI should be declared whenever an RDF schema is changed." (Other than
> confusing namespace URIs with schema URIs) this statement is a 
> rather silly
> requirement.

This is no hard problem. All that is needed is to simply remove, 
or soften the wording in the spec on this matter. As it stands, 
the vast majority of schemas (including the RDF Schema Schema 
itself! - due to character encoding changes) would be in 
violation of this recommendation. This wording must be fixed.

** XML Fragments

The fragment spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-fragment) is in W3C 
CR phase. I don't completely grasp the specification after a 
first look through, but it appears to do what we want. It 
defines what it calls the FCS, or a fragment content 
specification. The FCS infoset seems to include all information 
that is possibly relevant to the fragment. It then packages it 
so that it may be stored in an XML document. Here is an example 
of a package, taken from the spec:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<p:package xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/2001/02/xml-package">
   <p:fcs xmlns:f="http://www.w3.org/2001/02/xml-fragment"
          
sourcelocn="http://acme.com/trans1234#root().child(1,purchase).child(2,book)
">
     <transaction>
       <purchase>
         <book/>
     <p:fragbody/>
       </purchase>
     </transaction>
   </p:fcs>

   <p:body>
     <book>
       <Author>J. R. R. Tolkien</Author>
       <Title>The Book of Lost Tales (The History of Middle-
Earth)</Title>
       <Edition>Mass Market Paperback Reprint edition (June 
1992)</Edition>
       <ISBN>0345375211</ISBN>
       <Price currency="USD">4.79</Price>
       <Quantity>1</Quantity>
     </book>
   </p:body>
</p:package>

It seems this may be very useful for RDF Literal packaging.

** rdfs-constraining-containers

You have closed this issue claiming:
> other languages such as (DAML+OIL, WebOnt, prose) can express 
> those contraints (sic)

I would request that the Working Group provide an example of how 
these constraints can be described in DAML+OIL. Otherwise I do 
not consider this issue closed.

** Task Forces

A note on task forces: although it does not seem practical to 
set up lists for each task force that has been created, I 
strongly request that they all live in public space. Please copy 
all email messages to w3c-rdfcore-wg, or www-archive and make 
all relevant documents public. The artifacts of your work are 
very important and I do not want to see them lost.

Thanks,
--
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 10:25:15 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:44 EDT