Dave's disposition on RDF Core issues

I've trawled through the recent busy threads, and this is summarising
for myself on the various issues and messages somewhere I can point
to in the telcon.

Messages are relative to
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/
unless otherwise stated.

reagle-01, reagle-02
  is this still live?  Patrick had problem with some of the words in
  jjc's resolution.

timbl-01 rdf:bagID
  I prefer to keep it, useful, was implemented
  can live with removal

chas-01 aboutEach*
  my proposal in 0026 to reject this comment

pfps-16
  Graham's proposal in 0032 - yes

namespace doc contents (not issue yet)
  No WG feedback yet on my proposal 0012
  continued

timbl-01 reification
  I prefer it stays, people use it, was implemented
  Might vote against removal at this stage.

pfps-18
  Graham's proposal in 0018 - yes

tex-01
  prefer language lowercase always
  NFC move to SHOULD - yes
  new type of test case needed

  still under discussion

pfps-22, 23
  Graham's proposal in 0044 - yes
  some syntax doc changes may be needed

pfps-16
  Graham's proposal in 0045 - yes

namespace-name
  Graham's proposal in 0046 - yes.
  Will need syntax doc changes too, to match this

williams-01
  Graham's proposal in 0048 - yes

pfps-08 "XML Literals"
  not convinced yet why change needed
  0053 from PFPS CC:ed to the group had some reasons but incoherent syntax
  patrick 0074 part 1) - I could live with reverting to previous XML"foo" form
  patrick 0074 part 2) - I could live with dropping lang on XML literals
  find <rdf-wrapper> in the string ugly

  opposed - would vote no - on removing lang from plain literals (I
    don't that is being proposed)

  still under discussion

tex-02 
  Graham's editorial changes in 0092.
  First reading looks ok to me, needs more eyes.

jsr-118 - CC/PP
  agree with suggesting CC/PP use RDF typed datatypes as in Brian's 0037

Dave

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 08:47:06 UTC