From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 15:32, 10 March 2011 by Dwood4
Miscellaneous Issues to be handled in RDF
Some of these are minor but, per charter or otherwise, the WG should take care of these.
Required (per charter) issues
- Official RDF Errata: There are official errata for the RDF document that we have to take over to the new documents. Raised as ISSUE-6.
- Leftover issues: There is a RDF active issue list left over from the previous RDF WG that has "postponed" issues. We may want to look at these to see if there are anything the new RDF WG would want to pick up. ISSUE-7.
- IRI vs. RDF URI Reference: The IRI Spec is from 2005, and it may be necessary to retrofit it to RDF. Eg, what is the relationship between "http://résumé.example.org" and "http://xn--rsum-bpad.example.org"? Are they the same resource or not? Note that SPARQL has something on that... ISSUE-8
- Semantics issues: The current inference rules are incomplete in the RDF Semantics and the entailment lemma should be updated; (see Herman tehttp://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/10r Horst's paper) ISSUE-9
- Deprecation: A number of concepts may be deprecated. The usual suspects are: containers and reification. ISSUE-10.
- RDF Primer: A new version may include multi-syntax examples, more up-to-date in terms of the vocabularies used, may deal with issues around Linked Data like the use of “owl:sameAs”, the “follow-your-nose” algorithm, etc.
Time permitting issues
- Reconciliation of documents: since 2004 a number of W3C documents were published that had an effect (extension) on the "core" RDF semantics but they may have gone unnoticed because spread over. The WG may consider folding these into the core RDF documents at least by reference. These are:
- RDF Plain Literal added a new datatype into the RDF namespace
- POWDER's IRI Set Semantics defines an extension to the core RDF Semantics by defining a "bridge" between URI-s as resources and URI-s as strings
- SPARQL 1.1's upcoming Entailment Regimes document defines a finite 'sub-semantics' for RDF and RDFS; these are restricted semantics that can be handled with a rule engine in a finite manner. The practical importance of these clearly go beyond SPARQL...
- Reconcile various forms of string literals: at the moment we have plain literals, rdf:plainLiteral, and xsd:string literals. They are very very close to one another but they are officially different. In practice this means that, eg, SPARQL queries have to have a three branch UNION to handle all of these. Worth looking at some sort of a reconciliation of these.