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

Re: Outstanding Issues

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:05:45 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:36 12/02/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:

>I think Dave proposed making rdf:Id in a property consistently identify a 
>corresponding reification quad.  I support that proposal.

Actually, I think Dave went the other way; you have just outlined Jeremy's 
counter.  Would you care to write it up, along with test cases?
>>rdfms-fragments: Confusing semantics of # fragments
>>I propose we remain agnostic on this.  Whatever an absolute URI with a 
>>fragmentid names, that is what RDF is describing.
>I'm not sure this helps out with the "confusing semantics", but I'm not 
>sure what else we can do.  I note that a fragment id has no distinguished 
>status in the model theory (unlike web-at-large), so that goes a little 
>way to clear some confusions.

Graham, could I ask you to make a proposal to resolve this question.

>Assuming it doesn't mess up the model theory, I'd be inclined to not 
>prohibit literals-as-subjects in the graph syntax, but otherwise apply 
>what you say to RDF/XML and N-triples (for now).  This would mean that if 
>a future group does define syntax to allow this, there is a semantic 
>foundation ready for it.

True.  However, it also means that tools like Jena will be compelled to 
support it, but won't be able to write it as n-triples or RDF/XML.  I know 
that it is already the case that we can't write all graphs as RDF/XML, but 
Jena will find a non standard way to fix that, and I don't want that 
happening more often than it has to.


>>rdfms-identity-of-statements: Does the model allow different statements 
>>with the same subject/predicate/object?
>Is it?  Doesn't the model theory answer this?

No, but this is part of the reification discussion.

>>rdfms-seq-representation: The ordinal property representation of 
>>containers does not support recursive processing of containers in 
>>languages such as Prolog.
>>Hmmm.  Anyone got a proposal for fixing this?
>I don't think the ordinal property representation is a problem per se, but 
>the lack of a maximum member indicator might be.

True.  Hmmm, model theory question.  If we define a property of containers, 
say rdfs:size which is the number of members, does:

      _:a <rdfs:size> "10" .
      _:a <rdf:_11>   <foo> .

cause any theoretical problems?  Or is just an inconsistent model with no 

>>rdfms-assertion: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an 
>>The director has an architectural requirement that we say something about 
>>this.  We need someone to draft some appropriate words.  Any volunteers?
>I think the statement should be kept simple.  I offered some words a while 
>RDF is intended to convey assertions that are meaningful to the extent that
>they may, in appropriate contexts, be used to express the terms of binding

That sounds like a volunteer.  Thanks Graham.  Could you identify the best 
place to put this text, and bring a proposal to the WG to resolve the issue 

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 12:34:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC