W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Issues list update/status?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:49:23 -0500
Message-ID: <3BB34A83.87D56AB7@w3.org>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
(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


but I'm having trouble making the correspondence

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
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.


     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"


     rdfms-graph: Formal description of the properties of an RDF

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


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-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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC