Re: Issues list - delayed message

Thanks for the issue-list fodder :-)

I've been talking with Ralph, DanC, Eric Miller and others about how we
might most usefully manage an issues list. IMHO it's important to
establish framework and expectations before we go public with something. DanC
suggests this is the same as the Activity Statement(s); I'm sometimes
convinced. Right now I think SWDI and Metadata are probably one and same
activity, with the latter aspect falling in a 'Semantic Web Accessibility'
category analagous to I18N and WAI.... But anyway...

This week I started sketching a wrapper page with notion of three issue

- RDF Schema (via www-rdf-comments to the existing RDF SChema comments page)
- M&S bugfix (ditto to the M&S errata page, as fodder for some new doc)
- Futures (as a catchall for issues that were rejected by M&S, Schema editors)
After some more thought, I figure the latter isn't a full-blown issue
list, but instead a disposition state w.r.t. issues that we reject as
edits against the current Specs (I plan to follow DanC's model where possible)

in-progress docs (not yet circulated widely):

The problem with having a genral 'future issues' list is that  it'll be
extremely hard to scope/manage. Instead we settled on tracking 'topics'
(API, Query Language, Inference, Trust stuff) from the RDF IG home page.

I have a redraft of the RDF home page to make live shortly; after
discussion the section I'd created on API and Query Languages will move
into the RDF IG home page so we can grow it to track other issues without
bloating the home page.

BTW, IMHO xml:lang needs to be treated in same way we treat datatypes
(which are also barely on the radar...)



On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> (I found this in a window I had not gotten around to pressing send on)
> ______________________________________________________
> Danbri,
> Kudos for getting going on this.
> It is good to give credit where credit is due for issued, and not always jut
> to point to the director as well!
> - XML lang not being in the model  was brought up by Sergey
> Thoiugh that suggests adding itto the model rather than removing it from th
> esyntax.
> Folks,xml:lang is not represented in the RDF model according to RDF M&S 1.0,
> which is IMO a bug in the specs.
> - The issue of Alt, Bag and Seq being searated out from the basic model is
> brought up in
> for
> example.
> - Issue: need for "poorest man" serializeion
> As a next step I'd like to have a "poorest man" RDF/XML serialization:<rdf>
>   <triple subject="[URI]" predicate="[URI]" object="[URI]"/>
>   <triple subject="[URI]" predicate="[URI]">[PDCATA]</triple>  ...</rdf>
> These may not be the first occurrences.  But I think all the issued I pulled
> out I pulled out of previous messages.  pointers to the first raising we can
> find would be a godo idea.
> As regards state, I think we can do a broader categorization.
> - Bug fix, propose for 1.1  (ml lang, some reference issues?)
> - Simplification (like removing PICS bits, aabouteachprefix, lang, etc).
> Doesn't affect other features => wait to see if IG wanst tto start an action
> to do them
> - Syntax change which can be done back-compatibly with existing syntax =>
> suggest trials with software.
> Or something like that. Then we concldue, there are only 2 bugs and there is
> a consensus for a version 1.5, but we need to work on x and y at teh IG
> level. O

Received on Thursday, 6 April 2000 20:33:49 UTC