W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > April 2003

[Fwd: [closed] chas-01 request to add aboutEachPrefix]

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 15:51:51 +0200
Message-ID: <3E942577.5090204@sidar.org>
To: wai-xtech@w3.org

Hi Folks,

This issue got rejected by the RDF core group.

My feeling is that  aboutEachPrefix per se is indeed a nasty hack with 
lots of problems. On the other hand there is a huge need to be able to 
discuss a class of objects without enumerating every member of the class 
in advance. For example, pages produced by an organisation, or pages 
aproved by an individual for publication. (In fact there is no reason 
why these would all begin with the same fragment of URI anyway).

It may be that this is only possible by using OWL. This would mean that 
we cannot expect to meet these use cases except with systems which have 
the additional machinery, as far as I can tell. I would like to ask the 
grop for an explicit clarification of whether this is the case, and if 
so I will actually request something to this effect go in the primer 
(including at the least a link to an explanation of how it can be done 
using the full glory of the Framework)...

cheers

Chaals

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[closed] chas-01 request to add aboutEachPrefix
Date: 	Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:44:13 +0100
From: 	Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
To: 	Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
CC: 	www-rdf-comments@w3.org



Charles,

You made a last call comment captured in

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#chas-01

The RDF Core WG has resolved

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0128.html

to reject this comment on the grounds that the original reasons for
removal remain valid:

 * We had good feedback that it lived badly in RDF and as such was
   little implemented or used.

 * It broke layering by looking inside URIs rather than dealing with
   them as identifiers.

 * Felt more like a RDF/XML syntax thing than part of the RDF model
   and as such it mixed badly with triples.

 * Worked badly with rdf:bagID - the interactions were never well
   understood.

 * Experienced practitioners recommended against using it.

Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org
indicating whether this decision is acceptable.

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 09:51:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:38 GMT