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

Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-07-26

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 09:31:04 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 08:41 PM 7/25/02 -0400, Eric Miller wrote:
>8) New Document
>A new draft of 'Resource Description Framework (RDF): Overview and
>Abstract Data Model' is available at:
>Graham to do quick intro; Graham if you have specific issues that need
>to be addressed by individuals/editors, please be prepared to discuss
>this as well.

Thanks for the warning!  This message constitutes my prepared input, to 
which I'll talk in the telecon.  Hopefully, a URI of the message can go 
into the IRC log/minutes.

These are the notes I'll use for that purpose:

- 25 July version of the document has had two main sections removed, per 
telecon 2002-07-12, and now contains three substantive sections:
   2. Goals, rationale, key features
   3. Definition of RDF graph syntax
   4. Other technical issues

- Feedback received already from Dave Beckett, much of which is in the 
process of being folded in (but not in the version noted above).

- The main points as yet incomplete or needing review:
   - section 2.2.5, datatypes (pending outcome of datatype discussion)
   - Section 2.3, needs review:  this is new text and new topic material 
since F2F
   - Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2:  Dave Beckett has asked these be removed in 
favour of
     a reference to the syntax document.  I agree, but currently see no 
     list in the syntax document.
   - Section 3:  need to liaise with PatH to ensure description is 
consistent with MT usage
     (JJC will pursue this)
   - Section 3:  some test cases cited are still subject to group agreement
   - Section 3:  various comments from DaveB, JJC is reviewing these
   - Section 4.2:  needs review:  this discussion of fragment identifiers 
is new
     material compared with what has been discussed before;  it is a 
synthesis of
     my own thoughts and comments by PatH and TimBL (though any errors are,
     of course, all mine).
   - Section 4.2 also laps at the edges of a current TAG discussion,
     and we'll want to make sure it's not inconsistent
     and in particular the document text:
In view of this, it is reasonable to consider that URIs without fragment 
identifiers are most helpfully used for indicating web-retrievable 
resources (when used in RDF), and URIs with fragment identifiers are used 
for abstract ideas that don't have a direct web representation. This is not 
a hard-and-fast distinction, as the line between resources having or not 
having a web-retrievable representation is sometimes hard to draw 

>Graham, in particular see next agenda item.

Noted:  see separate message.


Graham Klyne
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 07:54:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:59 UTC