Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)

> CLOSED: rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity, rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema
> 
> On 2001-06-29, the Working Group resolved that:
> 
>   - the container specific productions (M&S Section 6, 
> productions 6.25 to 6.31) and any references to them be removed 
> from the grammar.
> 
>   - rdf:li elements will be translated to rdf:_nnn elements when 
> they are found matching either a propertyElt (production 6.12) 
> or a typedNode (production 6.13).
> 
> These changes are made because:
> 
>   o the container specific productions in the grammar are redundant and
>     add nothing to the language.
> 
>   o The container specific productions fail to recognise subclasses of
>     container.
> 
>   o The current specification is unclear about how to process rdf:li
>     elements which are not propertyElt's recognised within a container
>     specific  production.
> 
> An advantage of the decision is that rdf:li elements can be used to
> number members of sub-classes of containers.
> 
> Test cases: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
> tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/
> 
> A full write up of the decision should be available soon.
> 
My reading is, that the semantics of the container elements themselves will not change. Is this interpretation 
correct?

> CLOSED: rdfms-aboutEach-on-object
> 
> On 2001-06-29, the Working Group resolved that rdf:aboutEach is 
> not allowed on an rdf:Description element which is an object of 
> a statement.
> 
> ** Under Discussion
> 
> UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about
> 
> The Working Group is considering two proposals:
> 
> Proposal 1: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
> tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/
> Effectively make rdf:ID and rdf:about equivalent.
> 
> Proposal 2: No writeup available yet
> Generate rdfs:isDefinedBy triples when rdf:ID is used.

There are pro's and con's: PRO: Prop2 meets, what many people think, when using rdf:ID as opposed to rdf:about. 
                           CON: Existing parsers need to be adapted. 

Comment on CON: That's necessary already by decisions cited above.

rs

> 
> If you have an opinion on this issue, please let us know:
> 	www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> 
> UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-literals-as-resources
> 
> Should literals  be considered a type of resource, possibly 
> "data:" URIs rather than a special case in the model?
> 
> If you have an opinion on this issue, please let us know:
> 	www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> 
> UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-xmllang
> 
> What should we do about xml:lang?
> 
>   - Keep it a special case in the model (a property of a literal)?
>   - Use some sort of triple or other model-based system for it?
>   - Throw it out altogether?
> 
> If you have an opinion on this issue, please let us know:
> 	www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> 
> UNDER DISCUSSION: Issue Priorities
> 
> Are there issues that you would like to see RDF Core address 
> right away? Please let us know:
> 	www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> 
> Thanks for your feedback,
> --
> [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
> 
>

Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 06:32:58 UTC