Objections to postponing issues

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