- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:41:14 +0300
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Further small comment, suggest delete "at the time of writing this document" from section 5; that is always implicit - and you are talking about xsd version 1.0 datatypes not any futurue ones. I've gone through the issue list to try and understand where the current editors draft sits, here's my thoughts: RESOLVED ISSUES horrocks-01 rdfs:comment semantics not accepted raised Ian Horrocks accepted NO impact. pfps-01 XML Schema datatypes none raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider none http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0199.html RESOLVED: we accept comment pfps-01, and that it is addressed by the revised text in the semantics editor's draft. Still true, but the quoted text has changed. pfps-03 translation to Lbase none raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider none not accepted no impact pfps-05 RDFS closure rules none raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider none http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0199.html RESOLVED: we accept comment pfps-05, and it is addressed by by rule rdfs1 in section 4.2 of the Semantics editor's draft more importantly: we no longer claim the entailment lemma. pfps-07 typed literals with lang tags accepted raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider none complete change, comment still accepted, but now we no longer have the beasts. pfps-08 typed literals not accepted raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider not accepted http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0199.html RESOLVED: we accept comment pfps-08, and 3.4 in the semantics editors draft addresses it. The section number has changed to 5, the detail minuted is still fine. pfps-10 untyped literals Resolution raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider none no change addressed by LV = ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)) in section 4. pfps-21 namespace v vocabulary accepted raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider accepted I did not notice any violations. timbl-02 reification semantics not accepted raised Tim Berners-Lee none the promised health warnings are included. no change qu-01 Domain of rdfs:member not accepted raised Qu Yuzhong accepted no change qu-02 rdfs:member functional? not accepted raised Qu Yuzhong none no change qu-03 Ontology subset of RDFS none raised Qu Yuzhong none no change reagle-03 must use xsd:? not accepted raised Joseph Reagle accepted no change xmlsch-07 datatype definition Resolution raised XML Schema WG accepted (I have not checked this one) ================= Open Issues horst-01 RDFS entailment lemma none raised Herman Horst none does not seem to be addressed ... other than by dropping the completeness claim. pan-01 Extending to FOL none raised Jeff Z Pan none hmmm ... we should have discussed this by now. if we are going to accept even a little bit of it we have been heading in the wrong direction. pfps-02 Lbase translation of XML Literals none raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider none not considered. pfps-04 RDF closure rules none raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider none The specific example has been addressed by changes in XMLLiteral (in concepts). The general problem has been addressed by dropping the claim to completeness. pfps-06 typed XML literals and LV none raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider none This comment is addressed both in section 3 green box and in section 5 green box. pfps-09 datatypes none raised Peter F. Patel-Schneider none I don't really understand the comment. The current draft is better vis-a-vis URIs and datatypes - but RDF does not provide a mechanism for tying the two togther, and I can only sympathize with Peter. qu-03 Ontology subset of RDFS none raised Qu Yuzhong none not considered
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 14:41:21 UTC