W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-05-11

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 07:13:24 -0400
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030509111323.GB21436@tux.w3.org>

I had another thought on why WebOnt should remove their dependency on
those triples being stated explicitly rather than implied by rdfs:domain...

...in doing this, they constrain not only the current RDF/XML syntax, but 
all future OWL-friendly RDF syntaxes and markup-based exchange mechanisms. No 
future syntax will be able to just emit the obvious triples. This includes 
whatever folks do in the 'xml schema anntotation' space, XSLT-based transforms, 
N3-ish stuff, the works. 

If they were just constraining the current RDF/XML syntax, it'd be bearable. But
for this to be their legacy for all future syntaxes seems pretty heavy, given 
that the triples are implied.

Dan

* Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-05-09 11:52+0100]
> 
> At 12:12 09/05/2003 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >Possible proposal:
> >
> >PROPOSE: that RDF Core asks WebOnt WG to decide this issue.
> >
> >Pat and Dan might be better placed to say than me, but it might be best to
> >delay another week ... :( (I was not at the webont telecon, and there are 
> >no
> >minutes or IRC as yet, but got signs of a lack of resolution in the e-mail)
> 
> I've had offlist email from Guus saying that WEBONT was split on the 
> question and would like another week.
> 
> I like your approach and would suggest the following modification.  I 
> believe, that from an RDF point of view RDFCore has a preference - that is 
> to remove the triples - I suggest we say that to WEBONT.
> 
> Therefore, would there be support for:
> 
> PROPOSE:
> 
> Send the following message to WEBONT:
> 
> [[
> RDFCore have received a last call comment [1] requesting that the triples:
> 
>   _:bnode rdf:type rdf:List .
> 
> be removed from the expansion of parseType="Collection" and the grounds 
> that triples are often not required, create an unnecessary implementation 
> overhead and can be easily inserted where required.
> 
> RDFCore are aware that the current OWL specs rely on the presence of these 
> triples, but it has been suggested that this dependence could easily be 
> removed.
> 
> RDFCore would prefer to accept the comment and remove the triples and 
> therefore urge WEBONT remove their dependence on the presence of these 
> triples.
> 
> We would be grateful for a speedy response to this request.
> 
>   [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#timbl-03
> ]]
> 
> If we are not prepared to express such a preference, then the issue is moot 
> and we should not accept the comment.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> >>
> >> 12: Language tags in typed literals
> >
> >I offer the co-chair  the subagenda just sent out.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 13: Issue xmlsch-01 Typed Literal Structure
> >>
> >> Various proposals to close:
> >>
> >>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0247.html
> >>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0252.html
> >
> >I withdraw my comments 247 in favour of Brian's 252.
> >
> >> 14: Issue xmlsch-02 Whitespace facets
> >>
> >> Proposal:
> >>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0224.html
> >>
> >
> >I will try and make a formal proposal now.
> >
> >Jeremy
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 07:13:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:29 EDT