Re: Action Item: proposal for posting resolved issues

>>>Art Barstow said:

<snip/>

> However, the group decided the following change for rule [6.19] 
> would be added to the errata:
> 
>  [6.19] Qname          ::= [ NSprefix ':' ] name
> 
> will be changed to:
> 
>  [6.19] Qname          ::= name

I think rather:

   [6.19] Qname          ::= NSprefix ':' name

i.e. compulsory prefix, but I'll work on a full list of grammar changes

<snip/>

>  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr
>
> you essentially suggested in:
>
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0156.html
>
> that the last clause of [6.12] be changed from:
> 
>  | '<' propName idRefAttr? bagIdAttr? propAttr* '/>'
> 
> to:
> 
>  | '<' propName idAttr? resourceAttr? bagIdAttr? propAttr* '/>'
> 
> This wouldn't be a typo fix, IMHO, as it would clearly break

> all RDF parsers that conform to the 1.0 spec.  

That particular issue is on hold until the empty-element issue is
clarified but yes, it would break things and I think the group does
recognise this since we've discussed it and I get the feeling most
people want to make clean breaks.

> I would not expect these type of changes to be placed in the
> errata.  As a convenience to the WG (and the RDF community), I
> think it would be useful to consolidate these type of changes
> in a document as I have described.  All changes in that document
> would be subject to some type of "it's not over till it's over"
> provisio as I stated previously.

I'm also uncomfortable calling this errata, but would prefer to have
some statement in the errata for RDF M&S, Schema pointing at the
resolved issues document - some words needed here saying "watch out,
here are the changes subsequent to this document, changing the syntax
and model".  The resolved issues document could then give more details
on the state of proposed changes for those documents.

Dave

Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 12:44:27 UTC