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