- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:49:23 -0500
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[IF YOU FOLLOW UP TO DISCUSS A SPECIFIC ISSUE (rather than to report its status), CHANGE THE SUBJECT] I got the impression that our telcon agendas should somewhat parallel the "Currently Active Issues" section of our issues list http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/ but I'm having trouble making the correspondence lately. Focus on the issues list has, happily, been diverted by the release of all these WDs, and I'm happy to see it take a back seat to the primer for a bit too... But now that we have some drafts out, I've been looking at the issues list to see how many of them are addressed by our drafts... or how many of them at least have a clear home in one of the drafts... Starting with the "Currently Active Issues" rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr: The propertyElt production 6.12 of the grammar does not allow both an ID attribute and a resource attribute to be specified (owner Dave Beckett) This clearly should be addressed by the syntax spec. I suggest adding an appendix to the syntax spec (among others) that enumerates issues addressed by the spec, with a pointer into the issues list and a pointer to the section of the spec that addresses it. Hmm... this issue isn't mentioned in "2.3. Approved Test Cases" in the test cases spec. I thought we had resolved this one, but I don't see any evidence that we have (though I haven't checked the meeing records). Dave? What's the status of this? rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about: What is the difference between using an rdf:ID attribute to 'create' a new resource and an rdf:about attribute to refer to it? (Aaron Swartz) This is done, right? There's a test case in the testing WD; it was marked "unapproved" but we approved it recently, no? Hmm... maybe that was something else we approved. There's a "Resolution" section in http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/ but it doesn't provide any evidence that the WG made that resolution. Also, I would quibble with the "URI-encoded form of" language. The test cases address this issue to my satisfaction, but perhaps this issue should stay open until the syntax spec has a formal description of how to convert RDF/xml syntax to n-triples. Aaron? rdf-terminologicus: The RDF community needs a precise terminology to enable it to discuss issues.(Martyn Horner) I don't see how we could consider this closed until all our work is done. I double-checked the issue summary to see if the folks who raised it had something less than all-the-worlds-problems in mind, but they don't. I suggest taking this off the front-burner (i.e. the "currently active" list). Or maybe it'll get significant attention in the context of the primer. rdfms-identity-anon-resources: What URI, if any, identifies an anonymous resource? (Graham Klyne) I suggest this is addressed by the model theory spec. I propose to close it during tomorrow's "3: Congratulate Pat on the publication of the Model Theory WD" item. rdfms-graph: Formal description of the properties of an RDF graph. This seems to have a home in the model theory spec, but given the feedback from Peter et. al., I don't suppose we've adequately addressed it. How did it get on the active list without an owner, I wonder? It seems intimately related to http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-incomplete That issue is under "Postponed" in the issues list, but I can't find any evidence of a WG decision to postpone it. I've been asked, in our Semantic Web Advanced Development discussions, to take a particular position on this one. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I suppose should send my thoughts to the WG in any case. rdfms-xmllang: Why isn't xml:lang information represented within the RDF data model? Hmm... no owner. It clearly seems to fit in the syntax spec, though. Mr. Chair, please either recruit an owner (maybe the editor(s) of the syntax spec?) or take it off the active list. rdfms-literals-as-resources: Consider replacing literals with resources whose URI uses the data: URI scheme. This seems to belong in the model theory pile, along with rdfms-graph. rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure : A literal containing XML markup is not a simple string, but is an XML structure. Jeremy seems to be leading the charge on a related topic (2001-09-07#5 Literals); I'd like it if he'd explicitly address this issue in his proposal. Brian, how did this get on the active list without an owner? Any suggestion about its status? rdfs-domain-and-range: Should a property be allowed more than one rdfs:range property? What should the semantics of multiple domain and range properties be? (Dan Brickley) This is all over but the crying. I suggest the chairs move this to the "closed" section, with pointers to whatever supporting materials are relevant (i.e. decision record, test cases...) Oops... do we have test cases for this one? Danbri? rdfs-domain-unconstrained: The rdfs:domain and rdfs:range constraints for rdfs:domain are missing from the RDF Schema for RDF Schema (Dan Brickley) status, Danbri? rdfms-uri-substructure: xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? Clarification needed (Sergey Melnik) rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf: Cycles of subClassOf properties are prohibited (Frank Manola) I suggest the chairs find the test cases and close this one too. ]]] By the way... is anybody working on an RDF version of the issues list? (say... scraped from the HTML one?) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 11:49:25 UTC