- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 14:43:53 +0300
- To: <danbri@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
This is a very motivating argument. Perhaps we could test the waters by taking a position on the issue, that parsers need not generate the obvious triples, and see if Web-Ont soils their collective trousers about it. Eh? Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org] > Sent: 09 May, 2003 14:13 > To: Brian McBride > Cc: Jeremy Carroll; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-05-11 > > > > I had another thought on why WebOnt should remove their dependency on > those triples being stated explicitly rather than implied by > rdfs:domain... > > ...in doing this, they constrain not only the current RDF/XML > syntax, but > all future OWL-friendly RDF syntaxes and markup-based > exchange mechanisms. No > future syntax will be able to just emit the obvious triples. > This includes > whatever folks do in the 'xml schema anntotation' space, > XSLT-based transforms, > N3-ish stuff, the works. > > If they were just constraining the current RDF/XML syntax, > it'd be bearable. But > for this to be their legacy for all future syntaxes seems > pretty heavy, given > that the triples are implied. > > Dan > > * Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-05-09 11:52+0100] > > > > At 12:12 09/05/2003 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > >Possible proposal: > > > > > >PROPOSE: that RDF Core asks WebOnt WG to decide this issue. > > > > > >Pat and Dan might be better placed to say than me, but it > might be best to > > >delay another week ... :( (I was not at the webont > telecon, and there are > > >no > > >minutes or IRC as yet, but got signs of a lack of > resolution in the e-mail) > > > > I've had offlist email from Guus saying that WEBONT was > split on the > > question and would like another week. > > > > I like your approach and would suggest the following > modification. I > > believe, that from an RDF point of view RDFCore has a > preference - that is > > to remove the triples - I suggest we say that to WEBONT. > > > > Therefore, would there be support for: > > > > PROPOSE: > > > > Send the following message to WEBONT: > > > > [[ > > RDFCore have received a last call comment [1] requesting > that the triples: > > > > _:bnode rdf:type rdf:List . > > > > be removed from the expansion of parseType="Collection" and > the grounds > > that triples are often not required, create an unnecessary > implementation > > overhead and can be easily inserted where required. > > > > RDFCore are aware that the current OWL specs rely on the > presence of these > > triples, but it has been suggested that this dependence > could easily be > > removed. > > > > RDFCore would prefer to accept the comment and remove the > triples and > > therefore urge WEBONT remove their dependence on the > presence of these > > triples. > > > > We would be grateful for a speedy response to this request. > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#timbl-03 > > ]] > > > > If we are not prepared to express such a preference, then > the issue is moot > > and we should not accept the comment. > > > > Brian > > > > > > >> > > >> 12: Language tags in typed literals > > > > > >I offer the co-chair the subagenda just sent out. > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 13: Issue xmlsch-01 Typed Literal Structure > > >> > > >> Various proposals to close: > > >> > > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0247.html > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0252.html > > > >I withdraw my comments 247 in favour of Brian's 252. > > > >> 14: Issue xmlsch-02 Whitespace facets > >> > >> Proposal: > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0224.html > >> > > > >I will try and make a formal proposal now. > > > >Jeremy
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 07:44:11 UTC