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

Re: Outstanding Issues

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:20:22 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101411b8908554db1b@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>I've been taking  a stroll through the outstanding issues with a 
>view to seeing if we can them nailed by the end of the f2f.  I've 
>made some suggestions on how we might proceed.  Responses welcome.
>Model and Syntax Issues
>rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr: The propertyElt production 6.12 of 
>the grammar does not allow both an ID attribute and a resource 
>attribute to be specified (owner Dave Beckett)
>Dave has made a proposal in the syntax WD; awaiting counter proposal 
>from Jeremy.
>rdfms-graph: Formal description of the properties of an RDF graph.
>Basically taken care of by the model theory.  Close?


>rdfms-xmllang: Why isn't xml:lang information represented within the 
>RDF data model?
>This was put on hold whilst we looked at datatypes.  Model and 
>Syntax says that lang is part of the literal; that no triples are 
>generated for an xml:lang.  We can choose to stick with that or 
>change it.  Does anyone have a compelling reason to change it?

Not me

>rdfms-literals-as-resources: Consider replacing literals with 
>resources whose URI uses the data: URI scheme.
>I suggest that this would be a significant change to the current 
>spec and that we just say no on the grounds that it is out of 

Agreed. We might put it into a do-next list for the next WG

>rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure : A literal containing XML markup is 
>not a simple string, but is an XML structure.
>This issue was put on hold pending the outcome of the datatypes 
>discussion.  I suggest we are far enough along on datatypes to bring 
>this one back.

Wow, I missed that one. If we said yes, that would have made XML 
Dtyping a hell  of a lot easier! I thought that Dan C. was insistent 
that literals had to be simple strings.

>rdfms-uri-substructure: xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? 
>Clarification needed (Sergey Melnik)
>A change from resources being named by URI references, to being 
>named by pairs, seems like a fundamental change to web architecture. 
>I propose we rule this out of scope.

Agreed, toss it to the WG concerned with URIs.

>rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes: A suggestion that the RDF Schema Spec 
>might usefully use XML Schema datatypes in examples and/or in some 
>formal specification of the mapping of these datatypes into the RDF 
>model. (Sergey Melnik)
>rdfms-fragments: Confusing semantics of # fragments
>I propose we remain agnostic on this.  Whatever an absolute URI with 
>a fragmentid names, that is what RDF is describing.

strong agreement. Not our problem.

>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.  I propose that we resolve this by saying that the current 
>syntaxes (RDF/XML, n-triples, graph syntax) does not allow literals 
>as subjects, but this restriction may be removed by a future WG.

Agreed. In fact it would be technically harmless, but lets not open 
another can of worms.

>rdfms-contexts: Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF.
>I propose that this is out of scope of the current WG.  However, if 
>a bunch of folks wanted to work up a note on the interest lists, 
>that would be another matter.

Dont decide on this (Pretty please) until another week has gone by. I 
need to send y'all a note on this.

>rdfms-identity-of-statements: Does the model allow different 
>statements with the same subject/predicate/object?

Lets close this. Yes, it does, because technically a graph is a bag. 
It makes no difference to the content (cf MT)  but might be wanted 
for other reasons, eg tracking provenances, dates, etc. .

>rdf-containers-otherapproaches: The design of the RDF Model 
>collection classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be 
>augmented with a 'better' design?
>I propose that this is out of scope for this 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.
>taken care of by the model theory


>rdfms-nested-bagIDs: What triples are generated for nested 
>description elements with bagIDs?
>resolved by syntax WD


>rdfms-replace-value: Suggestion that the rdf:value property be 
>replaced by rdf:toString.
>Issue modified to clarify the meaning of rdf:value.
>Datatypes is considering using rdf:value in a way that conflicts 
>with examples in M&S.

OK, but check out the very weak meaning given to it by the latest 
proposal; what examples does this clash with???

>  Data types should use a different property to avoid clashes with 
>existing usage.  rdf:value has no model theoretic meaning; any 
>interpretation of it is application specific.

Actually the DT could use something else. It needs a 'special' link 
between value nodes and literals, but it could be called anything.

>rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr : Clarify the interpretation of an ID 
>attribute in the propertyElt production within a Description element 
>with a distributive referrant.
>Should be closed.  As we have removed aboutEach, this issue no longer applies.
>rdfms-seq-representation: The ordinal property representation of 
>containers does not support recursive processing of containers in 
>languages such as Prolog.
>Hmmm.  Anyone got a proposal for fixing this?

Suggest say this is out of scope , cf. decision on 
rdf-containers-otherapproaches above

>rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces: How should a parser process namspaces 
>in a literal which is XML markup?
>This has been on hold pending datatypes outcome.  Time to bring back 
>and resolve.
>rdfms-assertion: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is 
>an assertion.
>The director has an architectural requirement that we say something 
>about this.  We need someone to draft some appropriate words.  Any 

Pat volunteers.

>rdfms-boolean-valued-properties: Suggestion for a standard way to 
>represent boolean valued properties.
>We had decided to model this using rdf:type, but PatH objected to 
>the wording of the resolution.  Awaiting improved wording from PatH.

Sent yesterday.

>rdfms-xml-base: How does xml-base affect RDF?.
>We have decided to allow xml:base anywhere.  Awaiting test cases from Jeremy.
>mime-types-for-rdf-docs: What mime type should RDF Schema and other 
>RDF documents have?
>Aaron has action to register the mime types when we are ready to 
>kick of the process.
>rdf-terminologicus: The RDF community needs a precise terminology to 
>enable it to discuss issues.(Martyn Horner)
>We decided the primer should have a glossary.  Is that done.  Can we 
>close this?

Close the issue, but not the glossary :-)

>rdf-charmod-literals: Does the treatment of literals conform to charmod ?
>We need an owner to check this.
>rdf-charmod-uris: Does the treatment of uris conform to charmod ?
>We need an owner to check this
>rdfms-rdf-names-use: unusual or illegal use of names from the rdf namespace
>DaveB has action to produce test cases
>rdfms-editorial: General editorial comments.
>No longer apply as we are rewriting the docs
>RDF Schema Issues
>		rdfs-constraining-containers: Should it be possible 
>to constrain the members of a container to be of a given type?

No. That would sneak a lot of expressiveness in by the back door, too 

>		rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property: Clarify whether a 
>Property can have a subClassOf property, and if so, what that would 

Yes it can. Any thing can be both a class and a property, in general. 
If a property has no class extension then subClassOf doesnt mean 
anything much.

>		rdfs-online-char-encoding: There is problem with the 
>character encoding of the online RDF Schema.

??IS there??

>		rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance: Suggestion of 
>clearer discussion of use of subClass and instance relationships 

Suggest close, handled by primer

>		rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics: Must the value of an 
>rdfs:isDefinedBy property be a schema?
>		rdfs-editorial: General editorial comments.
>RDF FAQ Issues
>This section lists issues raised against Frequently Asked Questions about RDF
>faq-html-compliance: The suggested way of including RDF meta data in 
>HTML is not compliant with HTML 4.01 or XHTML

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 16:20:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC