RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-05-11

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