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

RDFCore news

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:54:33 +0100
Message-ID: <3B534679.9BBE6B3A@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
The minutes of the latest RDFCore telecon are available at:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0148.html

The following news items have been added to:

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

A new issue has been added to the issues list:

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-rdf-names-use

which is seeking clarification of the correct processing of RDF/XML
where names defined in the RDF namespace are encountered in
unusual contexts e.g. rdf:about as a typed node or rdf:Description
as a property attribute.

Modification to M&S have been proposed to reflect the decision to allow
partial descriptions of containers:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0039.html

The issue:

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-uri-substructure

has been activated for discussion.  The main point of this issue
is whether the RDF abstract model should identify resources with
URI's or with a pair (namespace, localname).

A document has been received from the DAML+OIL 'joint committee'
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/att-0168/01-RDFS-DAML_OIL-coordination.html

outlining the relationship between DAML+OIL and RDF(S), listing
those parts of RDF used by DAML+OIL, those not used, changes needed
by DAML+OIL and some areas of RDF(S) which are 'problematic' for
DAML+OIL.

Please direct any thoughts or comments you have on these items to
www-rdf-comments@w3.org.

Brian
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 15:57:03 GMT

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