W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Proposal submissions (was: Re: Range constraints on collection members)

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 19:17:53 +0300
To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8D64BE1.12A82%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

I'll pass your suggestion on to Garret.

Patrick


On 2002-04-06 10:14, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:

> This note is less about the merits of the particular case raised than a
> general comment about W3C process.  I'm hoping some W3T folks who follow
> this can clarify process matters.
> 
> It seems to me that however much we define, there will always be more good
> ideas.
> 
> If this were the IETF (which is open to submissions from anyone), I'd say
> to Garrett (or to you, Patrick):  write up your proposal as a draft in the
> general form of an extension to the RDF standard documents (using the same
> notation conventions, document layout, etc.) and request publication as a
> draft.  If the case made was *really* compelling, the WG might then choose
> to adopt it into the current revision of specification.  More likely, if
> the case is moderately compelling then the idea may be adopted as a future
> enhancement to the specification.  Anyway, a published specification in the
> right general format provides a "highest point of departure" for future
> work on the topic covered.  Having an implementation would enhance the
> specification's credibility.
> 
> W3C has a process for submission of NOTESs, but (a) it is fairly
> heavyweight, and (b) AFAIK it is only available to W3C members and
> team.  But that seems to be the nearest equivalent.  (Alternatively, I
> suppose such an individual might write up such a proposal, publish it on
> their own web site, and post a link to the appropriate www-*-comments list,
> but it seems that such proposals are more likely to be overlooked.  Maybe
> allow some related-submissions links fromn the WG home page?)
> 
> Anyway, returning to the particular point raised:  there is no reason that
> the suggested rdfs:containerRange could not be specified (apart from the
> namespace) separately, used privately and also submitted for consideration
> by the present/future working group.  If the proposal is subsequently
> adopted into the rdfs: namespace then the early implementers have a
> URI-mapping problem - I see no way to avoid that.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> At 06:31 AM 4/5/02 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> On 2002-04-04 22:51, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> At 06:02 PM 4/4/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>>>> RDF Schema Issues
>>>> 
>>>>     * rdfs-constraining-containers: Should it be possible to constrain
>>>> the members of a container to be of a given type?
>>> 
>>> I have a vague recollection we'd decided to defer this one??  (i.e. that
>>> RDFS 1.0 would provide no such capability.)
>> 
>> I just recieved email from an implementor, Garret Wilson at Global Mentor,
>> that this is sorely needed for what they are doing.
>> 
>> I encouraged him to post a summary of the issue to RDF comments.
>> 
>> My present take on this is that we need an additional constraint
>> property that applies to containers, such as rdfs:containerRange
>> which would be used in conjunction with rdfs:range.
>> 
>> We can't simply extend the semantics of rdfs:range to collections
>> because one may wish to say that a property must take a collection,
>> not just a single value, and thus, rdfs:range breaks. What is
>> needed is an additional constraint mechanism, such as something
>> like rdfs:collectionRange which would apply to the members of
>> a collection. One would then specify e.g. that the property's
>> rdfs:range would be rdf:Bag and the rdfs:collectionRange would
>> be xsd:string, etc.
>> 
>> If the rdfs:range is xsd:string, then a value of rdf:Bag is in
>> fact a range violation since an instance of rdf:Bag is not
>> an instance of xsd:string.
>> 
>> Eh?
>> 
>> Patrick
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
>> Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
>> Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> 
> 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 12:15:14 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:23 EDT