- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:46:03 +0000
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 20:31 11/03/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: >Proposals will be offered for the following issues to be discussed at >the next telecon: [...] Issue list: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ >GK: williams-01, pfps-16, pfps-18, pfps-22, pfps-23 An initial review of these issues: ... williams-01, What is a node in an RDF graph? http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#williams-01 Both Jeremy and I have made proposals: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0059.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0045.html pfps-16, RDF's Expressive Power I think this is a largely editorial issue, involving text at various places in the document. I propose that the issue is addressed by me revising text in sections 2.2, 2.2.6 and 3.5. ... pfps-18, namespace v vocabulary http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-18 Brian has proposed a resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0221.html and I have subsequently noted usage in RDF-concepts: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0062.html I this is a basis for closing this issue. ... pfps-22, reserved names in abstract syntax http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-22 pfps-23, sanctioned by? http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-23 I think these are really a single issue. With respect to section "RDF Core URI Vocabulary and Namespaces": http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-URIspaces I suggest: 1. Soften the initial sentence: [[ RDF uses URIs to identify resources and properties. Certain URIs are reserved for use by RDF, and may not be used for any purpose not sanctioned the RDF specifications. Specifically, URIs with the following leading substrings are reserved for RDF core vocabulary: ]] to [[ RDF uses URIs to identify resources and properties. Certain URIs are reserved for use by RDF, and should not be used in ways not supported by the RDF specifications. Specifically, URIs with the following leading substrings are reserved for definition by the RDF specifications: ]] 2. add some additional text along the lines of: [[ The meaning of URIs in the RDF and RDFS vocabularies (i.e. those that start with the RDF or RDFS namespace name) is determined by the RDF specifications (including possible future revisions and extensions). Any information about such URIs that is not supported by the RDF specification should not be taken to be true in all uses of RDF. Thus, URIs based on the RDF and RDFS namespace names should be treated as reserved, except for purposes specified by RDF specifications. Also note that some URIs in the RDF vocabulary have purely syntactic purpose; e.g. rdf:ID is used in the RDF/XML syntax, and is not specified for use to denote an RDF subject, object or property. Such use has no defined meaning, and should be avoided. A list of syntactically reserved URIs is in section 5.1, The RDF Namespace, of the RDF/XML syntax specification. ]] [cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-Namespace] (There's some redundancy here with the existing text, but the goal here to indicate an intent, not rewrite the document. So the actual changes would not be exactly as suggested here.) .... #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 08:49:24 UTC