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

Re: More questions

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 13:07:27 +0100
Message-ID: <3AF7E17F.A6FE9435@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Lets remind ourselves what the WG charter says:

  ... fixes, clarifications and improvements to the specification of RDF's
      abstract model and XML syntax.

  ... to complete the work on RDF vocabulary description present in the
      RDF Schema Candidate Recommendation.

We are doing what TBL in Hong Kong characterized as a "clean up" of the rdf

To that end we are using an issue led process.  There are issues with the
current specifications and we are going to try to resolve those issues.
The chairs have the job of scheduling the order that we tackle the issues
to optimise our progress.

Martyn Horner wrote:
> By the way, my boss (Dr Saarela), would like me to pose a couple of
> questions to the group for consideration...

It might be useful to review the charter and issues list with your boss.

> What's the judgement on type IDs (range values etc in RDF) now that the
> XML Schema spec is a Recommendation?

I'm not clear exactly what you mean here.  What issue does this relate to?
Has it been scheduled for discussion?   Do you wish to propose that it be 
scheduled for early discussion?  Why? How does it relate to XML Schema's 
progression to recommendation?

> Arity -- never sure if that's a legitimate word -- can the minOccurs,
> maxOccurs attributes be copied over to RDF definition?

I don't believe this is on the current issues list.  If you wish to propose it
as an issue, please can you write it up and submit it as a new issue
for consideration.  Your write up should clearly indicate why it is desirable
to support arity constraints at the RDF schema level rather than in the
ontology layer.  I should say, that my first reaction is that this would
be an extension to the current specification, not a fix to a current problem
and that I'm not sympathetic to extensions being in scope.

In general, in scheduling issues I'm trying to balance a desire to knock off
some easy wins, resolve issues which are causing developers and others immediate
concern quickly  with a preference for starting with the the basic RDF model and
working upwards.

> And another issue worth working on (but I think it's already active):
> digital signing of resources 

There is no such issue on the issues list.  Again, feel free to propose one,
but I'd suggest you review the charter before submitting it.

> (I guess this brings up questions of
> canonicality of documents and hence works against my `resource is as
> resource does' liberal approach). Is rights management in general part
> of our concern


Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 08:07:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:48 UTC