- From: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:18:33 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
On Apr 15, 2011, at 20:53, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > 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. Concur. > >> 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. Propose to CONTINUE. This was discussed at the Workshop and didn't make the cut for this WG, but I suspect we will continue to hear about it (especially since TimBL has expressed his thoughts). > >> 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. Concur to close. > >> 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. Concur. > > +1 to all other resolutions as proposed. I still need to carefully review the others, so don't take this email as complete from me. Thanks. Regards, Dave > > Best, > Richard
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 19:18:26 UTC