<wdr:ResourceSet />is the Empty Set. Finally, we turned to talking about naming different key Classes. This follows some internal confusion over 'description' and 'description resource'. The resolution was that we should call a DR a 'Descriptive Resource' (not, not Description Resource) and retain the terms Attribution, Scope and Description for a DR's components. It is to be noted that support for this was lukewarm and we may return to the issue in future.
owl:unionOfetc) or with white space separated lists as values of RDF properties. There is precedent for this in XHTML's role and link's
relattribute — i.e. they both take white space separated lists. Multiple set definitions that are presented as part of an RDF
Collectionseems doomed to repeat a lot of data, probably unnecessarily, so this is receiving less favour. The XML-based option (option 6) is still very much on the table too. Other issues were discussed in relative brevity. First, we will define two RDF properties to handle grouping by IP address.
hasIpwill take a single IP address as its value, and
hasIpRangewhich will take a CIDR block. The group looked at a proposal to support group definition by top, second and third level domain. e.g.
has2LevelDomain. This would have some advantages for some users but would be prone to causing confusion, especially in countries where the convention is to use a third level domain, e.g
example.com.cnetc. On balance, this proposal was not adopted. Finally, comparison of IRIs and URIs with strings in set definition will be done following canonicalization that will include rendering all strings in UTF-8 with percent triples all converted to their actual characters.