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

prioritized list of 'issuettes'

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:00:06 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

I'm about to put together the agenda for the telecon and decided I needed a 
prioritized list of 'issues' we need to resolve to make progress.  I also 
figured I might as well share it so folks can request tweaks.

all1: To label or not to label nodes.

This is a question about how the abstract syntax is described.  Do we talk 
about nodes labelled with URI's etc or do we talk about URI's as the nodes?
This is crucial as all the specs depend on the description of the abstract 
syntax.  Must fix.  The concepts doc is definitive here.  2.4.2 currently 
labels nodes as does section 4.  Pat has proposed new language in:


We need to decide.

all2: lang tags on datayped literals.

Nokia, having previously dissented if the abstract syntax for a datatyped 
literal did not contain a language string, have now withdrawn that dissent 
and suggested that the language string be withdrawn from the abstract 
syntax of a datatyped literal.


Whilst I am reluctant to reopen old issues, this does look like a better 
option, but have we already have committed ourselves to the lang string in 
the way we have handled the XMLLiteral datatype.

Is there support for this request?  If so, is it feasible to make it.

mt3: What do old style literals denote

I've seen the following options:

   o strings
   o pairs (string, langTag)
   o UNION of strings and (string, langTag)

see thread:

Schema1: Whats in the class rdf:Literal?

Two suggestions, the class extension of rdf:Literal contains

   o union of denotation of old style literals and class extension of XMLiteral

   o as above union the class extensions of all members of rdfs:Datatype

mt2: Datatypes in the semantics.

   see thread beginning:

mt1: List semantics.

Do we have a strong semantics for lists in RDF.
The general recollection (mine included) seems to be that we had decided 
no.  I am going to regard this as a proposal from Pat, to reconsider 
this.  Pat, is there new information?

Con1: Title: data model or abstract syntax

Propose change title to abstract syntax.

Style9: Ensuring consistentcy of terminology.

Style1: boilerplate for list of docs

Style2: standard names for references

Style3: boilerplate for current and previous wg members

Style4: standard format for code blocks

Style5: standard color schemes

Style6: boilerplate for what we are looking for feedback on

Style7: style for notes

Style8: style and policy for referring to test cases

Style10:ensuring integrity of references between docs 
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 12:57:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:01 UTC