- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:03:44 +0000
- To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
The draft request to advance document I started a while back is at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance.html and it now linked to from the documents section of the WG home page http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#documents Eric: Is this version uptodate with respect to the implementation report? Is there some action we need to take? Suggested responses to Objections (I've drafted an alternative to JJC's response on I18N as I'd like something shorter and more to the substantive point): ---------- (Pat: I could probably do with some help with this one.) Peter F. Patel-Schneider has objected to the entailment rules (@@ref). The substance of the objection is that the entailment rules are not strictly complete in that they do generate arbritary entailments from inconsistent graphs. The RDFCore WG urges the director to overrule this objection on the grounds that: a) the entailment rules are an informative part of the specification b) the current rules, which are complete in the sense that they generate all possible entailments from consistent RDF graphs are more useful to implementors, the primary audience for this section of the specification. ------ The XML Schema WG have objected @@ref that the RDFCore WG has failed to revise the RDF/XML syntax so that it may be described by an XML Schema. The RDFCore WG urges the director to overrule this objection on the grounds that: a) Whilst RDFCore considers the goal to be desirable, the RDFCore WG was explicitly forbidden in its charter (@@ref) from designing a new syntax b) RDFCore did not find a small modification to the current syntax that it considered to be within in its charter that would achieve this goal c) RDFCore did not seek to extend its charter to enable it to tackle this task on the grounds that it has already heavily overrun its schedule and did not wish to delay publishing the results of the work that lies within its current charter. ---- The I18N WG have objected to the design of XML Literals @@ref. The substance of the objection is that RDFCore have designed no standard for specifying a language tag for an XML fragment containing mixed content. RDFCore urges the director to overrule this objection on the grounds: a) the current design involves no loss of functionality. Standard XML mechanisms can be used to represent language information if required, but wrapping the XML fragment in another element with an xml:lang attribute. b) the defininition of a standard mechanism for embedding arbritrary fragments of XML within XML is properly a matter for the XML working groups, not RDFCore. ----
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 07:04:19 UTC