Re: draft partitioning of the issues

Aaron Swartz wrote:
[...]
> mime-types-for-rdf-docs:
>         I don't think this is an abstract syntax issue, although I'm not really
>         sure where it fits. If there's no better place for it then we can just
>         leave it here.

I put it close to #rdfms-fragments as they seemed to me to be related.

> 
> I also believe the following issues are in scope for the Working Group:
> 
> rdfms-literals-as-resources and rdfms-literalsubjects:
>         A large body of implementation and user experience shows the
> need for these
>         issues to be clarified. I think that there is certainly room for
>         clarification of this within the charter of the Working Group.

I'm a bit confused by this one Aaron.  Whilst I'm not arguing (yet) whether
these are in or out of scope, they don't seem to be about clarification.
Is there any doubt that as far as m&s is concerned:

  o literals are not allowed as subjects
  o literals are not resources

Which is maybe not how some folks would like it to be.  If we considered
introducing this change, do you think we would need a syntax change to
represent it?  Of course, anyone can now use data uri's now if they want to.
We don't have to do anything to support that.

> 
> rdf-equivalent-uri's:
>         Experience with the DAML specification has shown equivalence
> to be a useful
>         and perhaps even essential property. It's absence from the
> schema spec is,
>         in my opinion, an error.

I try to avoid using words like 'error', but I have long felt that such
a facility would be useful.  I remember Mike Dean commenting at the
Boston f2f that equivalence was "something that should get implemented
early".

Brian



> 
> Thanks,
> --
> [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]

Received on Sunday, 24 June 2001 10:27:49 UTC