- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:35:06 -0700
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Hi Folks, > > Another brief update on the RDFCore WG's progress. > > The WG has closed Issue rdfms-equivalent-representations. In summary the > decision was that the RDF Graphs used as the basis for the model theory, > n-triples, and the graphical diagrams used in, for example, the Model and > Syntax document are all equivalent and the WG intends to keep them > equivalent. The RDF/XML syntax, however, is not capable of representing > all of these structures; it can't handle a bNode which is the object of > more than one statement. However, as previously decided, extending the > syntax to fix that is beyond our scope at present. > > Another topic that may be of interest is that the WG is considering > removing rdf:aboutEach from the language. The arguments advanced in favour > of this can be seen in the proposal: item 16 on the agenda in: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0485.html > > It would helpful to the WG to know: > > - which parsers do and do not implement rdf:aboutEach > > - if you use rdf:aboutEach and removing it would cause a problem I just finished up the aboutEach implementation for 4RDF this week. Personally, I'd like to see containers themselves disappear from RDF M&S, so I'd shed no tears if aboutEach were to vanish. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 23:42:18 UTC