W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Issues status update.

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:56:53 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 06:02 PM 4/4/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>Model and Syntax Issues
>     * rdfms-contexts: Suggestion that the concept of context is missing 
> from RDF.

Where do we stand on this issue?  (I like the idea of allowing nodes to be 
labelled with graphs, but that the graph thus used is not 
asserted.  Rather, the node denotes a resource that is identified by the 
graph in some way.)

I think discussion is needed.

>     * rdfms-seq-representation: The ordinal property representation of 
> containers does not support recursive processing of containers in 
> languages such as Prolog.

Are there any proposals on the table?
(a) do nothing
(b) have an end-of-list member (Pat's suggestion, I think)
(c) have a member number limit property
(d) something else?

I think discussion is needed.

>     * rdfms-assertion: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is 
> an assertion.

I thought some text for this was being worked into the model theory (and 
syntax?) specifications.

>     * mime-types-for-rdf-docs: What mime type should RDF Schema and other 
> RDF documents have?

Isn't this in hand?

>     * rdf-charmod-literals: Does the treatment of literals conform to 
> charmod ?
>     * rdf-charmod-uris: Does the treatment of uris conform to charmod ?

Jeremy seems to have these well in hand.


Graham Klyne
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 15:07:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:11 UTC