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

A collection of issue resolutions

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:05:25 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020212184947.0224d758@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I'd like to clear the decks as much as possible before the face to face so 
we can concentrate our time there on problematic issues.  So here are a 
bunch of issue resolution proposals I'd like to bring up at this week's 
telecon.

I could have sent each of these out as a separate mail message, but in the 
intersts of not generating too much mail traffic, I didn't.  If you have 
issues with any of the proposals, please respond to each proposal in a 
separate message to keep the discussion clear.

rdfms-graph: Formal description of the properties of an RDF graph.

Propose the WG resolve that the model theory is a formal description of the 
properties of an RDF graph and that this issue be closed.

rdfms-literals-as-resources: Consider replacing literals with resources 
whose URI uses the data: URI scheme.

Propose the WG resolve that the proposed change would be a major change to 
the RDF specification and is out of scope for this WG.

rdfms-uri-substructure: xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? Clarification 
needed (Sergey Melnik)


Propose the WG resolves that changing how resources are named on the web is 
a web architecture issue and beyond the scope of our charter.

rdfms-literalsubjects: Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to 
be literals?

I suggest that changing the RDF/XML syntax to support this is out of charter.

Propose

   o the WG resolves that the current syntaxes (RDF/XML, n-triples, graph 
syntax) do not allow literals as subjects.

   o the WG notes that it is aware of no reason why literals should not be 
resources and a future WG with a less restrictive charter may extend the 
syntaxes to allow literals as the subjects of statements.


rdf-containers-otherapproaches: The design of the RDF Model collection 
classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 
'better' design?

Propose the WG resolves this issue is out of scope for this WG but places 
the issue on the list of to be considered by a future WG.

rdf-formal-semantics: The RDF Model and Syntax Rec and RDF Schema CR do not 
provide a formal specification of the semantics of RDF.

Propose the WG resolves that the model theory defines formal semantics for 
RDF and that this issue be closed.

rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr : Clarify the interpretation of an ID attribute in 
the propertyElt production within a Description element with a distributive 
referrant.

Propose the WG resolves that this issue be closed on the grounds that with 
the removal of rdf:aboutEachPrefix and rdf:aboutEach there are no 
distributive referrants and the issue is mute.
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 14:06:41 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:09 EDT