W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2001

Attention Users! (2 in a series)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 14:04:11 -0500
To: RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20010701190411.FHSG13663.femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com@localhost>
Due to the favorable feedback from the last edition, I've 
decided to continue the "Attention Users!" series. All the 
messages will have "Attention Users!" in their subject so you 
can easily ignore them if you're not interested.

Last Edition: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-
interest/2001Jun/0244.html

** Standard Disclaimer

The RDF Core Working Group is making decisions that directly 
affect your software and your documents. I (personally) feel it 
is extremely important to keep you abreast of these decisions. 
While we have agreed upon the following, it is not yet set in 
stone, and your comments may guide us in the future or cause us 
to reconsider our decisions.

I am speaking only for myself and not on behalf of the Working Group.

** Recent Decisions

CLOSED: rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity, rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema

On 2001-06-29, the Working Group resolved that:

  - the container specific productions (M&S Section 6, 
productions 6.25 to 6.31) and any references to them be removed 
from the grammar.

  - rdf:li elements will be translated to rdf:_nnn elements when 
they are found matching either a propertyElt (production 6.12) 
or a typedNode (production 6.13).

These changes are made because:

  o the container specific productions in the grammar are redundant and
    add nothing to the language.

  o The container specific productions fail to recognise subclasses of
    container.

  o The current specification is unclear about how to process rdf:li
    elements which are not propertyElt's recognised within a container
    specific  production.

An advantage of the decision is that rdf:li elements can be used to
number members of sub-classes of containers.

Test cases: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/

A full write up of the decision should be available soon.

CLOSED: rdfms-aboutEach-on-object

On 2001-06-29, the Working Group resolved that rdf:aboutEach is 
not allowed on an rdf:Description element which is an object of 
a statement.

** Under Discussion

UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about

The Working Group is considering two proposals:

Proposal 1: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/
Effectively make rdf:ID and rdf:about equivalent.

Proposal 2: No writeup available yet
Generate rdfs:isDefinedBy triples when rdf:ID is used.

If you have an opinion on this issue, please let us know:
	www-rdf-comments@w3.org

UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-literals-as-resources

Should literals  be considered a type of resource, possibly 
"data:" URIs rather than a special case in the model?

If you have an opinion on this issue, please let us know:
	www-rdf-comments@w3.org

UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-xmllang

What should we do about xml:lang?

  - Keep it a special case in the model (a property of a literal)?
  - Use some sort of triple or other model-based system for it?
  - Throw it out altogether?

If you have an opinion on this issue, please let us know:
	www-rdf-comments@w3.org

UNDER DISCUSSION: Issue Priorities

Are there issues that you would like to see RDF Core address 
right away? Please let us know:
	www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Thanks for your feedback,
--
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2001 15:04:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:50 GMT