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

Issue #rdf-containers-otherapproaches

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:38:42 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020918133620.00a3eda0@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Brian,

http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches

Since this issue was closed as "this issue is out of scope for this WG" I 
note that we have since decided to include a list facility along the lines 
suggested:

http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation

Should first issue resolution be updated?

...

[[[This bit below is probably a non-issue -- I note an inconsistency in 
some meeting minutes, but the actual test case matches what I think was 
intended, so probably no concern.]]]


I also note an inconsistency in the minutes at which this was discussed:
[[
11: daml:collection
Propose
    o Approve Jos's test case as the basis for resolving this issue
    o add the new names to the rdf namespace
    o use parseType="Collection"
    o typed nodes are permitted as collection members
    o Action dajobe to add update the syntax spec based
      on Jos's test case
    o Action Jan to amend Jos's test case to show a typed node member
      and add it to the test cases with status approved
    o close this issue
See:
    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0103.html

General agreement in principle, discussion of details:
(1) agreed to create a daml:collection like structure in RDF
-- AGREED
(2) use rdf: namespace rather than rdfs:?
      Or use a new container namespace for the generated terms?
-- AGREED: go ahead with RDF namespace, but note reservations.
     Be prepared to change if good reasons arise.
     (The second most popular idea was to use a new namespace.)
(3) Change spelling to rdf:parseType='Collection'  (note capitalization)
-- AGREED
(4) Do we want to keep the rdf:type xxx:List triples?
-- YES
(5) instead of rdf:type properties, use rdf:member properties linked to
containers?
-- NO
ACTION 2002-05-31#2, DaveB: Update syntax spec with above decisions
ACTION 2002-05-31#3, JanG: Update test case document with this, and other,
test cases
DECIDED: the test case is approved
]]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0159.html

Namely, the approved test case uses RDF schema namespace, but the decision 
recorded was to use the RDF namespace.

Similarly, re. spelling of parsetype.

Since I recorded those minutes, I must take responsibility for the errors 
here.  I assume the intent was to "approve the test cases with changes to 
namespace and parsetype as noted"?  The test case itself 
(http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-seq-representation/) 
seems to reflect this intent.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 08:52:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:00 EDT