- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:34:23 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan, This is all great stuff, and I'm grateful. The issues list is not as uptodate as I'd like and needs some attention. Dan Connolly wrote: > [IF YOU FOLLOW UP TO DISCUSS A SPECIFIC ISSUE > (rather than to report its status), CHANGE THE SUBJECT] And if I may humbly add, follow Dan's example and create a new thread (i.e. don't reply) [...] > 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... Good point. DaveB has been suggesting we assign issues to the docs too. What I had in mind to do was to ask the editors to say which ones they felt would be covered by their docs and then see what overlap/underlap their might be. Looks like you've given us a start. However, I do think we have a process issue to resolve which you brought up earlier around what docs we are aiming to have. > > > 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). Err, that might be why its under currently open issues. > > 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? No. > 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. That's a good idea. With the decision to fold Martyn's work into the primer that seems a reasonable thing to do. Martyn - you ok with that? > 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. I hope you are right that we can close this one. I felt we needed to await Sergey's return before putting it on the agenda. I'm a wee bit nervous making sure we are procedurally correct in closing such an issue which has been so controversial and this was not on the agenda for this week. Can I suggest we action Graham, the issue owner, to propose formal resolution at the next telecon. And when its passed we all heave a collective sigh of relief :) > > > > 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. No - but we've made enormous progress :) > > How did it get on the active list without an owner, I wonder? I guess I put it there, probably because it was clearly active and no-one volunteered to own it. Pat - can we put your name against it? > 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. On a quick look neither can I. My fault. I will find the decision or restore it for consideration. Can you tell from the CVS diffs when it got moved to postponed - that will help narrow the search. Shame I can't put log entries in through jigedit. Maybe I should follow Dave's example and include a formal record of changes in the text - it just would be nice to have machine support. > > 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. My bad again :( I was trying to push this forward myself hoping someone would take pity on me pick it up. In effect I think Jeremy and Bill have with their work on literals. Jeremy/Bill - I merge this issue with rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure? > > 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? Jeremy is the owner. He and Bill dehOra have, in my view been doing a great job moving this forward. > > 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...) Yup - we have a whole host of closures/updates from the f2f on schema which are not reflected in the issues list. I was maybe hoping Danbri would do these - but as he's real busy - I'll do it. > > 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. Yup - hopefully do subPropertyOf today and I can close that one off. > > ]]] > > > > By the way... is anybody working on an RDF version of > the issues list? (say... scraped from > the HTML one?) I'm putting issue list management into Jema - but if someone could give me a scraped version of the current issues list that would be wonderful. Brian
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 07:54:43 UTC