Re: first cut at proposing closure for the RDFCore legacy issue list

On 04/14/2011 03:18 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> rdf-equivalent-uri's: Should RDF have a mechanism for declaring two
> uri's to be equivalent?
> RESOLVE: Closed, owl provides owl:sameAs already.

Unless I was really the only one to argue in favour of including it in
core RDF, I think that matter is still under discussion.

> rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf: RDF embedded in XHTML and other XML
> documents is hard to validate.
> RESOLVE: close - validation is so 1990s.


> 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.

my understanding is that the restriction is in the abstract syntax (and
hence in the concrete syntaxes), but not at all in the semantics.

> 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?

the abstract syntax exclude it

my impression is that the semantics does not even care, but I may miss
subtle details

I guess ntriples and turtle could be straightforwardly extended to
support that. RDF/XML would probably be left behind, though...

I can see nice use cases for allowing that, but I already ear voices
whispering "not in the charter"... :-)

> rdfms-contexts: Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF.
> 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.

I don't know if it is specified anywhere (writing the mail in the plane,
so I can't check rihght now), but I recall reading mentions to RDFS-LD,
a restriction of RDFS compatible with the layered model of description

nice job Dan


Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 15:36:38 UTC