- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:20:32 -0500
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
In the telecon today I said that I had objections to postponing the following two issues: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-replace-value http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qname-uri-mapping This is not because I agree with the proposed resolution, it is instead because I feel these two issues are the only way the WG will address some major problems with RDF 1.0, that I feel it needs to. Implementers, most notably Uche Ogbuji, have expressed concern over the poorly defined rdf:value property. It has caused problems with the publication of the Dublin Core in RDF draft, as DC isn't entirely sure of rdf:value's meaning. This is an issue the WG must clarify, somehow or another. I'm not insisting that we rename rdf:value or get rid of it, but ignoring it is not an option, and seems a violation of (at least the spirit of) our charter (if we're chartered to fix RDF's bugs, this is a big bug we need to fix). On qname-uri-mapping, I strongly disagree with Borden's proposal, and don't believe there is a need for it. However, I _do_ feel there is a need for the Working Group to at least _explain_ why it has chosen to break compatibility with the URI spec and instead use some new thing some have termed URIviews. If you feel that new issues should be opened for the problems that I've raised, so we can postpone the old ones, then fine. But I don't think the WG should be let off the hook. -- "Aaron Swartz" | The Semantic Web <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | i'm working to make it happen
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 14:20:34 UTC