W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

Re: On F2F Decisions

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:25:51 +0100
Message-ID: <3B7BADBF.B5472498@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Hi Aaron,

Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Unfortunately, I was unable to attend part of the meeting,
> however I hope that doesn't prevent me from making comments on
> the decisions you came to.
> On rdfs-versioning:
> > The WG decided to close this issue without action since it is a
> > known problem that is very hard to solve and is outside the
> > scope of this WG.
> I strongly, vehemently, totally disagree with this decision.

I guess that counts as dissent.

> This is a simple matter. As I wrote in:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-
> comments/2001JanMar/0047.html
> > The RDFS spec states: "this specification recommends that a new
> > namespace
> > URI should be declared whenever an RDF schema is changed." (Other than
> > confusing namespace URIs with schema URIs) this statement is a
> > rather silly
> > requirement.
> This is no hard problem. All that is needed is to simply remove,
> or soften the wording in the spec on this matter. As it stands,
> the vast majority of schemas (including the RDF Schema Schema
> itself! - due to character encoding changes) would be in
> violation of this recommendation. This wording must be fixed.

I think maybe I should raise my hands to be the cause of this difficulty.

The original messages raising the issue


raised questions of change management of schemas suggesting a need
for facilities for deprecating classes and schemas and properties
to indicate 'obsoletedBy', 'supercedes' etc.

I conflated this issue with the one you raised in


on the grounds it would be better to consider both at the same time.

My reading of the situation is that the original issue raised by Jonas
has been closed.  I suggest you propose some new text for the working
draft to address the issue you raised.

> ** rdfs-constraining-containers
> You have closed this issue claiming:
> > other languages such as (DAML+OIL, WebOnt, prose) can express
> > those contraints (sic)
> I would request that the Working Group provide an example of how
> these constraints can be described in DAML+OIL. Otherwise I do
> not consider this issue closed.

Are you dissenting from the decision to close this issue?  If so,
on what grounds?

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 07:28:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:03 UTC