W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2005

[ALL] proposed resolution httpRange-14

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:11:49 +0000
Message-ID: <4239C865.9010707@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>


I propose that

an http URI without a hash MAY be used to identify an RDF property

- where MAY is understood in terms of RFC 2119
- and identify is understood in terms of RFC 3986



=====

I suggest that if the resolution holds the chair should send a message 
transmitting this resolution to the TAG. A possible draft message is:

=====

The Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment WG have resolved 
unaminously that:

    - an http URI without a hash MAY be used to identify an RDF property

where MAY is understood in terms of RFC 2119
and identify is understood in terms of RFC 3986

Our primary concern is:
     - deployed semantic web applications such as Dublin Core [1],
Friend-of-a-friend [2], Creative Commons [3], Adobe XMP [4], RSS 1.0 [5]
that use such URIs

Other important concerns are:
     - the practical difficulty of using '#' namespace URIs for large
vocabularies such as wordnet
     - the impossibility of doing server side redirects on '#' URIs


This issue is impacting the work of the following SWBPD WG Task Forces:
     - Vocabulary Management
     - Porting Thesauri
     - WordNet
     - RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability
(see WG homepage for TF list and more information [6])


The SWBPD WG hope that the TAG will be able to soon reach closure on
your issue httpRange-14, noting the current SW practice embodied in our
resolution, and we offer to work with you as appropriate.

[1] DC URI
[2] FOAF URI
[3] CC URI
[4] Adobe XMP URI
[5] RSS 1.0 URI
[6] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/#Tasks


=====

My understanding of the usual practice is that the chair has discretion 
in the exact wording of such messages, and the WG does not usually 
micromanage the wording (but may).
 From the discussion at the f2f, there may be comments about the tone of 
my draft; it would be beneficial to have such discussion, or discussion 
of the actual proposed resolution, by e-mail before next week's telecon 
(assuming this proposal will be put then).

=====

I will be unable to attend on Thursday, if Brian is also unable to 
attend I appoint the chair as my proxy to propose and vote on this issue.


Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 18:30:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:07 UTC