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

Re: Proposed issue resolutions

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 14:07:11 -0500
Message-ID: <3BE6E35F.BFA6538@mitre.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> Following Dave's example of weeding out the issues list, I'd like to suggest
> these as possible quick kills.  As before, the idea here is that if there is any
> discussion to be had on any issue, it just gets dropped from the list, for now.
>   Those that survive, I'll bring to a telecon for formal closure.

Comments on each issue below:

> 
> Propose close
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-resource-semantics
> 
> on the grounds that the model theory says all that RDF is going to say about the
> nature of resources.  Further specification of the nature of resources is the
> work of other WG's.

Concur.

> 
> Propose postpone
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-equivalent-uris
> 
> on the grounds that it is out of scope of the charter.

I agree with what I think the idea is, but I assume we're going to state
this somewhere public, so I'd like to see a little more in the actual
wording so those interested don't think we're sweeping this under the
rug (like, we agree that some way of stating equivalence is important,
we just don't think it fits in our "rewrite/clarification" of RDF-1;  it
could go in an RDF-2;  there's a capability for doing this in DAML+OIL
so there are layering questions;  etc.]

> 
> Propose postpone
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-contexts
> 
> on the grunds that it is out of scope of the charter.

I'd suggest we see what we wind up doing with reification before
summarily disposing of this one.  There's a connection.

> 
> Propose postpone
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches
> 
> on the grounds that it is out of scope of the charter.
> 
> Propose close
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-formal-semantics
> 
> on the grounds that the model theory adequately addresses this issue.

In terms of the technical problems to be solved, I agree with Peter PS
on this one, but it seems to me this might be recast to say that if we
deal with reification and containers (which have their own issues) then,
given the existence of the model theory, do we need a separate issue on
formal semantics in general?  (There are actually a lot of issues on our
list intertwined like this.)

> 
> Propose close
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-logical-formalism
> 
> on the graounds that the model theory adequately addressses this issue.

I don't understand this issue anyway.  Dan?

> 
> Propose close
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-logical-terminololgy
> 
> on the grounds that the new terminology introduced by the model theory
> adequately addresses this issue.

Do these grounds mean that we're *only* going to use terminology from
the model theory?  For example, does it mean that the Primer shouldn't
talk about an "RDF Data Model"?  Lots of people know what a data model
is;  some of them can even manage to disambiguate that from a model in
logic!  

--Frank

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 14:11:39 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:30 EDT