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

Re: Closing rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about (was: RDFCore WG minutes for the telecon 2001-10-12)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:21:01 +0100
Message-ID: <3BCC96AD.4060609@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Aaron,

Good on ya!

Aaron Swartz wrote:

[...]


> 
> Meanwhile, I'd like to request that for the meeting, 
> rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about is put on the agenda. I'd like the 
> Working Group to agree to the proposed resolution and test cases at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
> tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/
> 
> The key part of which is:
> 
> """
> Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a description, 
> is equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the the '#' 
> character followed by the URI-encoded form of the content rdf:ID attribute.
> """
> 
> Please try to send me comments on this before the meeting so I can make 
> the necessary changes.


A couple of things here:

First: Dave is trying to get a new Syntax WD out by Friday.  Does that document 
address this issue.  If it does, lets wait for that and review the WD text.

Otherwise:

Now that we have some concrete documents to work with, I'd like to suggest that 
we take a slightly different approach to issue resolution.

It seems like we waste time and energy word smithing resolutions for the issues 
list, when, as folks have been pointing out, what really matters are the words 
in the spec and the test cases.

When we come to a decision on an issue, how about we agree test cases and 
general statement of  intent, and action the document editor to update the spec 
to reflect the test cases and intent.  Once we have the spec wording, we can 
check that text for precision and accuracy.

So in this case, Aaron would be proposing to action Dave to reflect the test 
cases and

 >
 > """
 > Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a description,
 > is equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the the '#'
 > character followed by the URI-encoded form of the content rdf:ID attribute.
 > """

in the specification.  When that's done will review, and formally close the 
issue with a resolution of the form "This is addressed in ..."

Any objections to giving this a try.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 16:26:08 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:04 EDT