- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:53:24 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
Nice work Dan. On 14 Apr 2011, at 14:18, Dan Brickley wrote: > rdfms-qnames-can't represent-all-uris: The RDF XML syntax cannot > represent all possible Property URI's. > > CONTINUE: Noted, RDF/XML does not allow all possible property URIs to > be represented. This issue remains open, while the WG explores the > impact of IRIs on RDF; however > RDF/XML is unlikely to change beyond the basic minimum needed. Other > formats (Turtle, n-triples) are available as alternatives to RDF/XML > where difficult property > names are unavoidable. Vocabulary authors have an incentive to choose > RDF property URIs that will work with all syntaxes, including classic > RDF/XML." Propose to CLOSE instead. This is a long-known problem in RDF/XML, users have learned to live with it, there is no easy fix, and updating from URIrefs to IRIs is unlikely to change anything here. > rdfms-literalsubjects: Should the subjects of RDF statements be > allowed to be literals > > CONTINUE: the situation is unclear. In a sense, literals are > resources. Restrictions are largely (but not entirely) syntactic. Propose to CLOSE instead, noting that it was ruled out of scope for this WG because the pre-WG process showed that a change would draw significant resistance from a number of implementers and users. > rdf-bnode-predicates: Request to allow b-nodes as property labels > > CONTINUE: is the abstract syntax / formal semantics already happy with > this? Does it affect ntriples, turtle etc? Propose to CLOSE instead, same argument as above. > rdf-fragids-in-embedded-rdf: Defining the interpretation of fragment > identifiers in RDF embedded in other document formats. > > RESOLVE: Continue (editorial) - the specs should probably mention this > somewhere. Yes, RDF Concepts should say something about this. It seems important for RDFa. I raised it as a new issue: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/37 Propose to CLOSE the old issue as a duplicate of the new ISSUE-37. +1 to all other resolutions as proposed. Best, Richard
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 18:53:54 UTC