Re: Outstanding Issues

>Folks,
>
>I've been taking  a stroll through the outstanding issues with a 
>view to seeing if we can them nailed by the end of the f2f.  I've 
>made some suggestions on how we might proceed.  Responses welcome.
>
>Model and Syntax 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)
>
>Dave has made a proposal in the syntax WD; awaiting counter proposal 
>from Jeremy.
>
>rdfms-graph: Formal description of the properties of an RDF graph.
>
>Basically taken care of by the model theory.  Close?

Yes

>
>rdfms-xmllang: Why isn't xml:lang information represented within the 
>RDF data model?
>
>This was put on hold whilst we looked at datatypes.  Model and 
>Syntax says that lang is part of the literal; that no triples are 
>generated for an xml:lang.  We can choose to stick with that or 
>change it.  Does anyone have a compelling reason to change it?

Not me

>
>rdfms-literals-as-resources: Consider replacing literals with 
>resources whose URI uses the data: URI scheme.
>
>I suggest that this would be a significant change to the current 
>spec and that we just say no on the grounds that it is out of 
>charter.

Agreed. We might put it into a do-next list for the next WG

>
>rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure : A literal containing XML markup is 
>not a simple string, but is an XML structure.
>
>This issue was put on hold pending the outcome of the datatypes 
>discussion.  I suggest we are far enough along on datatypes to bring 
>this one back.

Wow, I missed that one. If we said yes, that would have made XML 
Dtyping a hell  of a lot easier! I thought that Dan C. was insistent 
that literals had to be simple strings.

>
>rdfms-uri-substructure: xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? 
>Clarification needed (Sergey Melnik)
>
>A change from resources being named by URI references, to being 
>named by pairs, seems like a fundamental change to web architecture. 
>I propose we rule this out of scope.

Agreed, toss it to the WG concerned with URIs.

>
>rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes: A suggestion that the RDF Schema Spec 
>might usefully use XML Schema datatypes in examples and/or in some 
>formal specification of the mapping of these datatypes into the RDF 
>model. (Sergey Melnik)
>
>ongoing
>
>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.

strong agreement. Not our problem.

>
>rdfms-literalsubjects: Should the subjects of RDF statements be 
>allowed to be literals?
>
>I suggest that changing the RDF/XML syntax to support this is out of 
>charter.  I propose that we resolve this by saying that the current 
>syntaxes (RDF/XML, n-triples, graph syntax) does not allow literals 
>as subjects, but this restriction may be removed by a future WG.

Agreed. In fact it would be technically harmless, but lets not open 
another can of worms.

>
>rdfms-contexts: Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF.
>
>I propose that this is out of scope of the current WG.  However, if 
>a bunch of folks wanted to work up a note on the interest lists, 
>that would be another matter.

Dont decide on this (Pretty please) until another week has gone by. I 
need to send y'all a note on this.

>
>rdfms-identity-of-statements: Does the model allow different 
>statements with the same subject/predicate/object?
>
>ongoing

Lets close this. Yes, it does, because technically a graph is a bag. 
It makes no difference to the content (cf MT)  but might be wanted 
for other reasons, eg tracking provenances, dates, etc. .

>
>rdf-containers-otherapproaches: The design of the RDF Model 
>collection classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be 
>augmented with a 'better' design?
>
>I propose that this is out of scope for this WG.

agreed.

>
>rdf-formal-semantics: The RDF Model and Syntax Rec and RDF Schema CR 
>do not provide a formal specification of the semantics of RDF.
>
>taken care of by the model theory

agreed

>
>rdfms-nested-bagIDs: What triples are generated for nested 
>description elements with bagIDs?
>
>resolved by syntax WD

yes

>
>rdfms-replace-value: Suggestion that the rdf:value property be 
>replaced by rdf:toString.
>
>Issue modified to clarify the meaning of rdf:value.
>
>Datatypes is considering using rdf:value in a way that conflicts 
>with examples in M&S.

OK, but check out the very weak meaning given to it by the latest 
proposal; what examples does this clash with???

>  Data types should use a different property to avoid clashes with 
>existing usage.  rdf:value has no model theoretic meaning; any 
>interpretation of it is application specific.

Actually the DT could use something else. It needs a 'special' link 
between value nodes and literals, but it could be called anything.

>
>
>rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr : Clarify the interpretation of an ID 
>attribute in the propertyElt production within a Description element 
>with a distributive referrant.
>
>Should be closed.  As we have removed aboutEach, this issue no longer applies.
>
>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?

Suggest say this is out of scope , cf. decision on 
rdf-containers-otherapproaches above

>
>rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces: How should a parser process namspaces 
>in a literal which is XML markup?
>
>This has been on hold pending datatypes outcome.  Time to bring back 
>and resolve.
>
>rdfms-assertion: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is 
>an assertion.
>
>The director has an architectural requirement that we say something 
>about this.  We need someone to draft some appropriate words.  Any 
>volunteers?

Pat volunteers.

>
>rdfms-boolean-valued-properties: Suggestion for a standard way to 
>represent boolean valued properties.
>
>We had decided to model this using rdf:type, but PatH objected to 
>the wording of the resolution.  Awaiting improved wording from PatH.

Sent yesterday.

>
>rdfms-xml-base: How does xml-base affect RDF?.
>
>We have decided to allow xml:base anywhere.  Awaiting test cases from Jeremy.
>
>mime-types-for-rdf-docs: What mime type should RDF Schema and other 
>RDF documents have?
>
>Aaron has action to register the mime types when we are ready to 
>kick of the process.
>
>rdf-terminologicus: The RDF community needs a precise terminology to 
>enable it to discuss issues.(Martyn Horner)
>
>We decided the primer should have a glossary.  Is that done.  Can we 
>close this?

Close the issue, but not the glossary :-)

>
>rdf-charmod-literals: Does the treatment of literals conform to charmod ?
>
>We need an owner to check this.
>
>rdf-charmod-uris: Does the treatment of uris conform to charmod ?
>
>We need an owner to check this
>
>rdfms-rdf-names-use: unusual or illegal use of names from the rdf namespace
>
>DaveB has action to produce test cases
>
>rdfms-editorial: General editorial comments.
>
>No longer apply as we are rewriting the docs
>
>RDF Schema Issues
>·	·	rdfs-constraining-containers: Should it be possible 
>to constrain the members of a container to be of a given type?

No. That would sneak a lot of expressiveness in by the back door, too 
dangerous.

>·	·	rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property: Clarify whether a 
>Property can have a subClassOf property, and if so, what that would 
>mean?

Yes it can. Any thing can be both a class and a property, in general. 
If a property has no class extension then subClassOf doesnt mean 
anything much.

>·	·	rdfs-online-char-encoding: There is problem with the 
>character encoding of the online RDF Schema.

??IS there??

>·	·	rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance: Suggestion of 
>clearer discussion of use of subClass and instance relationships 
>simultaneously.

Suggest close, handled by primer

>·	·	rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics: Must the value of an 
>rdfs:isDefinedBy property be a schema?
>·	·	rdfs-editorial: General editorial comments.
>
>Danbri?
>
>RDF FAQ Issues
>This section lists issues raised against Frequently Asked Questions about RDF
>faq-html-compliance: The suggested way of including RDF meta data in 
>HTML is not compliant with HTML 4.01 or XHTML


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes