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

Comments to item 11 of agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-10-26

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:28:44 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011026132708.0435edd0@joy.songbird.com>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
As I won't be there, can I request that a reference to this message be 
entered into the IRC log of the meeting, for the record?

>11: Postpone syntax issues
>The aim here is to quickly resolve those issues for which there is clear 
>concensus.  If extended discussion is needed, we will postpone the decision.
>
>Propose the WG RESOLVE that the following issues be postponed for 
>consideration by a future WG
>
>See:
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-quoting

OK

> 
>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris

OK

>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-replace-value

[I missed this when it was raised]  I like this proposal, as it makes much 
more intuitive sense to me, and leverages existing developer understanding 
of toString() in existing programming languages.  Assuming it's consistent 
with any decisions about datatyping, I think there would be value to our 
current charter in adopting this.

To deal with backward compatibility, I'd suggest that rdf:value be retained 
as a "deprecated" form, equivalent to rdf:toString, which becomes the 
preferred form.

Thus, my vote is AGAINST deciding to defer this issue to a new WG at this 
time.  I think the proposal should be accepted or rejected by this WG.

>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qname-uri-mapping

I think deferring this issue would effectively be equivalent to accepting 
and fixing the status quo;  i.e. URI formation by concatenation.  I think 
this is a decision that this WG should face, not defer.

>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values

OK

>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-incomplete

OK.  (I think it's fine that the syntax cannot represent any graph;  if 
such a syntax is required, I think it's clearly an issue for a future WG.)

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 09:38:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:14 EDT