RE: [collections] Re: Web Ontology Working Group Consensus Review of RDF Core documents

I thought this had already come up and been added to the postponed issues
list.

That's the best we can do, IMO.

WebOnt don't have much of a leg to stand on, we added the collections syntax
following their design, and got sign-off from them ...

The requirement statement was wrong. Fixing it at this stage is too
difficult.

Jeremy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
> Sent: 21 February 2003 14:57
> To: RDF core WG
> Subject: [collections] Re: Web Ontology Working Group Consensus Review
> of RDF Core documents
>
>
>
> While I recognize that there are significant technical difficulties to
> allowing literals in list-collections, I also have considerable sympathy
> with the view expressed here.  In my own work with RDF, using Notation3
> rather than the XML syntax, I have found lists containing
> literals to be a
> useful feature.
>
> #g
> --
>
> At 05:17 PM 2/20/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >--------------
> >WOWG comments on RDF language decisions
> >--------------
> >
> >i. Design of rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:parseType="Literal":
> >
> >The full integration of this feature of RDF into OWL
> necessitates that the
> >denotation in the domain of discourse be fully defined by the
> source RDF/XML
> >file. We therefore request that you remove sufficient implementation
> >variability to ensure that this is the case.  An example fix would be to
> >require an RDF/XML parser to use a specific canonicalization on input.
> >
> >ii.Constraints on rdf:parsetype="Collection"
> >
> >We would prefer that rdf:parsetype="Collection" would be allowed to be a
> >list of datatype literals, not just a list of RDF node elements. This,
> >would permit some constructs in OWL that are difficult under the current
> >design.
>
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
>
>

Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 08:01:18 UTC