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

Draft Request to Advance

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:03:44 +0000
Message-ID: <3FA24FA0.1010106@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

The draft request to advance document I started a while back is at:

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance.html

and it now linked to from the documents section of the WG home page

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#documents

Eric: Is this version uptodate with respect to the implementation 
report?  Is there some action we need to take?

Suggested responses to Objections (I've drafted an alternative to JJC's 
response on I18N as I'd like something shorter and more to the 
substantive point):

----------

(Pat: I could probably do with some help with this one.)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider has objected to the entailment rules (@@ref). 
The substance of the objection is that the entailment rules are not 
strictly complete in that they do generate arbritary entailments from 
inconsistent graphs.

The RDFCore WG urges the director to overrule this objection on the 
grounds that:

   a) the entailment rules are an informative part of the specification

   b) the current rules, which are complete in the sense that they 
generate all possible entailments from consistent RDF graphs are more 
useful to implementors, the primary audience for this section of the 
specification.

------

The XML Schema WG have objected @@ref that the RDFCore WG has failed to 
revise the RDF/XML syntax so that it may be described by an XML Schema.

The RDFCore WG urges the director to overrule this objection on the 
grounds that:

   a) Whilst RDFCore considers the goal to be desirable, the RDFCore WG 
was explicitly forbidden in its charter (@@ref) from designing a new syntax

   b) RDFCore did not find a small modification to the current syntax 
that it considered to be within in its charter that would achieve this goal

   c) RDFCore did not seek to extend its charter to enable it to tackle 
this task on the grounds that it has already heavily overrun its 
schedule and did not wish to delay publishing the results of the work 
that lies within its current charter.

----

The I18N WG have objected to the design of XML Literals @@ref.  The 
substance of the objection is that RDFCore have designed no standard for 
specifying a language tag for an XML fragment containing mixed content.

RDFCore urges the director to overrule this objection on the grounds:

   a) the current design involves no loss of functionality.  Standard 
XML  mechanisms can be used to represent language information if 
required, but wrapping the XML fragment in another element with an 
xml:lang attribute.

   b) the defininition of a standard mechanism for embedding arbritrary 
fragments of XML within XML is properly a matter for the XML working 
groups, not RDFCore.

----
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 07:04:19 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 31 October 2003 07:04:24 EST