- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:54:33 +0100
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
The minutes of the latest RDFCore telecon are available at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0148.html The following news items have been added to: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#news A new issue has been added to the issues list: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-rdf-names-use which is seeking clarification of the correct processing of RDF/XML where names defined in the RDF namespace are encountered in unusual contexts e.g. rdf:about as a typed node or rdf:Description as a property attribute. Modification to M&S have been proposed to reflect the decision to allow partial descriptions of containers: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0039.html The issue: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-uri-substructure has been activated for discussion. The main point of this issue is whether the RDF abstract model should identify resources with URI's or with a pair (namespace, localname). A document has been received from the DAML+OIL 'joint committee' http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/att-0168/01-RDFS-DAML_OIL-coordination.html outlining the relationship between DAML+OIL and RDF(S), listing those parts of RDF used by DAML+OIL, those not used, changes needed by DAML+OIL and some areas of RDF(S) which are 'problematic' for DAML+OIL. Please direct any thoughts or comments you have on these items to www-rdf-comments@w3.org. Brian
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 15:57:03 UTC