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

Issue #rdf-containers-otherapproaches

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:38:42 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



Since this issue was closed as "this issue is out of scope for this WG" I 
note that we have since decided to include a list facility along the lines 


Should first issue resolution be updated?


[[[This bit below is probably a non-issue -- I note an inconsistency in 
some meeting minutes, but the actual test case matches what I think was 
intended, so probably no concern.]]]

I also note an inconsistency in the minutes at which this was discussed:
11: daml:collection
    o Approve Jos's test case as the basis for resolving this issue
    o add the new names to the rdf namespace
    o use parseType="Collection"
    o typed nodes are permitted as collection members
    o Action dajobe to add update the syntax spec based
      on Jos's test case
    o Action Jan to amend Jos's test case to show a typed node member
      and add it to the test cases with status approved
    o close this issue

General agreement in principle, discussion of details:
(1) agreed to create a daml:collection like structure in RDF
(2) use rdf: namespace rather than rdfs:?
      Or use a new container namespace for the generated terms?
-- AGREED: go ahead with RDF namespace, but note reservations.
     Be prepared to change if good reasons arise.
     (The second most popular idea was to use a new namespace.)
(3) Change spelling to rdf:parseType='Collection'  (note capitalization)
(4) Do we want to keep the rdf:type xxx:List triples?
-- YES
(5) instead of rdf:type properties, use rdf:member properties linked to
-- NO
ACTION 2002-05-31#2, DaveB: Update syntax spec with above decisions
ACTION 2002-05-31#3, JanG: Update test case document with this, and other,
test cases
DECIDED: the test case is approved
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0159.html

Namely, the approved test case uses RDF schema namespace, but the decision 
recorded was to use the RDF namespace.

Similarly, re. spelling of parsetype.

Since I recorded those minutes, I must take responsibility for the errors 
here.  I assume the intent was to "approve the test cases with changes to 
namespace and parsetype as noted"?  The test case itself 
seems to reflect this intent.


Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 08:52:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:15 UTC