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

RE: Issue rdf-equivalent-representations

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:50:24 -0000
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDOEHFCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Sorry Brian, I know you're trying to simplify life but ...

>    o The WG believes that extending the RDF/XML syntax so that it
> can respresent
>      all RDF graphs is beyond the scope of its current charter
> and resolves
>      to postpone consideration of this issue.

I have to date agreed with this, but .... I'm wavering.

I'm wavering for three reasons:

+ with a developer hat on, a developer who controls both an RDF/XML reader
and an RDF/XML writer I note that I have a *responsiblity* to my users to
fix this problem, at least between my writer and my reader. With WG hat on,
maybe I can duck that responsibility, but I, at least, need to have a
solution; even if it doesn't have WG blessing.

+ this is really a bug, a significant bug, not just an academic bug, a bug
with the spec. I think it is in charter to fix bugs.

+ there are a number of adequate fixes with adequate backwardly compatible
behaviour. Viz -
   a. mandate that all fragment URIs of a particular URI are in fact bNode's
and not real URIs e.g. http://www.w3.org/2001/11/rdf/bnode#b1

   b. suggest use of processing instruction
      e.g. <?rdf-fake-uri http://www.w3.org/2001/11/rdf/bnode?>

   c. use of new attribute rdf:local

Anyone care to push me over the edge?

Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 09:51:02 UTC

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