- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:18:22 +0200
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
Ok, since I co-chaired the group that left this pile of issues for us - http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#futures - I have made a quick and informal first pass at proposing closure of many of them. It hasn't been touched since 2005, so quite a lot of things in the surrounding landscape have changed (RDFa, POWDER, etc.). Maybe we should move it into the Wiki? or direct into tracker? cheers, Dan >From "Issues Postponed till a future Version of RDF" http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#futures rdfms-abouteachprefix: Something should be done about aboutEachPrefix construct RESOLVE "This has been addressed by the POWDER technology, which allows descriptive labels to be attached to resources identified by URI patterns; see http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/#specs " rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values: Suggestion that Qnames should be allowed as values for attributes such as rdf:about. RESOLVE "There are no plans to revise RDF/XML. The Qnames debate has continued in other contexts e.g. RDFa, and need not be tracked here." rdfms-qnames-can't represent-all-uris: The RDF XML syntax cannot represent all possible Property URI's. CONTINUE: Noted, RDF/XML does not allow all possible property URIs to be represented. This issue remains open, while the WG explores the impact of IRIs on RDF; however RDF/XML is unlikely to change beyond the basic minimum needed. Other formats (Turtle, n-triples) are available as alternatives to RDF/XML where difficult property names are unavoidable. Vocabulary authors have an incentive to choose RDF property URIs that will work with all syntaxes, including classic RDF/XML." rdfms-quoting: The syntax needs a more convenient way to express the reification of a statement. RESOLVE as CLOSED (duplicate): RDF WG is actively investigating so-called 'named graph' mechanisms and their relationship to reification. rdf-equivalent-uri's: Should RDF have a mechanism for declaring two uri's to be equivalent? RESOLVE: Closed, owl provides owl:sameAs already. rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf: RDF embedded in XHTML and other XML documents is hard to validate. RESOLVE: close - validation is so 1990s. rdf-containers-otherapproaches: The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design? RESOLVE: close (duplicate); the WG is already discussing which ordering mechanisms to mark as archaic, and how these might be improved. rdfms-literalsubjects: Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals CONTINUE: the situation is unclear. In a sense, literals are resources. Restrictions are largely (but not entirely) syntactic. rdf-bnode-predicates: Request to allow b-nodes as property labels CONTINUE: is the abstract syntax / formal semantics already happy with this? Does it affect ntriples, turtle etc? rdfms-contexts: Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF. RESOLVE: close (duplicate); the new WG is exploring this. rdf-embedded: How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document is asserted RESOLVE close - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document spec, and not ours. rdfms-assertion: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion. RESOLVE close: RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Main_Page - and by other application vocabularies. See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF. rdfxml-literals-in-collections: RDF collection syntax should allow literals. RESOLVE: CLOSED No plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time. rdfs-lang-vocab: request for a richer vocabularly for languages RESOLVE: Close - not considered a duty of the core RDF WG. rdfs-fyi: A request for a semantics free predicate for comments. RESOLVE: Close - consider this a 3rd-party opportunity. No need for the RDF WG to create this. rdfs-layered-subset: A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture RESOLVE: CONTINUE to bear this in mind as Semantics are revised / improved based on deployment experience. rdf-mapping-lists-and-containers: A request to define a formal semantic relationship between lists and containers. RESOLVE: Close - no plans to do this. Containers are largely considered legacy / archaic now, and are deployed in a variety of styles so mapping is not possible. rdfms-syntax-incomplete: The RDF/XML syntax can't represent an an arbritary graph structure. RESOLVE: Noted. No plans to substantially change RDF/XML. rdf-fragids-in-embedded-rdf: Defining the interpretation of fragment identifiers in RDF embedded in other document formats. RESOLVE: Continue (editorial) - the specs should probably mention this somewhere. rdf-plain-and-xml-literals: An XML literal without markup, e.g. "foo" should denote the same thing as the plain literal "foo". RESOLVE: Close (duplicate) - currently under discussion in RDF WG> test-manifest-semantics: The test cases manifest format has a semantic error. RESOLVE: Continue - we should take a look
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 13:18:50 UTC