You can not select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
4125 lines
165 KiB
4125 lines
165 KiB
<?xml version="1.0"?>
|
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
|
|
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
|
|
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>RDF Issue Tracking</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body bgcolor="#ffffff">
|
|
<a href="/"><img src="/Icons/WWW/w3c_home" alt="W3C" border="0" /></a>
|
|
|
|
<h1>RDF Issue Tracking</h1>
|
|
|
|
<p><em>seeAlso</em>: <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/">last call
|
|
comments</a> | <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20031010-comments/">2nd last call comments</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This is the issue tracking document of <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/">RDFCore Working Group</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/">www-rdf-comments</a>
|
|
list is the appropriate method of communicating new issues or concerns to the
|
|
RDFCore WG.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Status of this Document</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>This document identifies and defines the status of issues considered by
|
|
the <a href="/2001/sw/RDFCore/">RDFCore Working Group</a>. It is a working
|
|
document, and as such is subject to constant change as the WG proceeds.</p>
|
|
|
|
<hr />
|
|
|
|
<h2><a name="toc" id="toc"></a>Table of Contents</h2>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="#active-issues">Currently Active Issues</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#issues-awaiting">Issues Awaiting Consideration</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#futures">Issues Postponed till a future Version of
|
|
RDF</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#Objections">Objections</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#issues-details">Issue Details</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#closed-issues">Closed Issues</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h2><a id="active-issues" name="active-issues">Currently Active
|
|
Issues</a></h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>none at this time.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2><a id="issues-awaiting" name="issues-awaiting">Issues Awaiting
|
|
Consideration</a></h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>The <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/">www-rdf-comments</a>
|
|
list is the appropriate method of communicating new issues or concerns to the
|
|
RDFCore WG.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Model and Syntax Issues</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>None at this time.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>RDF Schema Issues</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>None at this time.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>RDF FAQ Issues</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>None at this time.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2><a name="futures" id="futures">Issues Postponed till a future Version of
|
|
RDF</a></h2>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-abouteachprefix">rdfms-abouteachprefix</a>: Something
|
|
should be done about aboutEachPrefix construct</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values">rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values</a>:
|
|
Suggestion that Qnames should be allowed as values for attributes such as
|
|
rdf:about.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris">rdfms-qnames-can't
|
|
represent-all-uris</a>: The RDF XML syntax cannot represent all possible
|
|
Property URI's.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-quoting">rdfms-quoting</a>: The syntax needs a more
|
|
convenient way to express the reification of a statement.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdf-equivalent-uris">rdf-equivalent-uri's</a>: Should RDF
|
|
have a mechanism for declaring two uri's to be equivalent?</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf">rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf</a>:
|
|
RDF embedded in XHTML and other XML documents is hard to validate.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdf-containers-otherapproaches">rdf-containers-otherapproaches</a>:
|
|
The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various awkward
|
|
features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-literalsubjects">rdfms-literalsubjects</a>: Should the
|
|
subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdf-bnode-predicates">rdf-bnode-predicates</a>: Request to
|
|
allow b-nodes as property labels</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-contexts">rdfms-contexts</a>: Suggestion that the
|
|
concept of context is missing from RDF.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdf-embedded">rdf-embedded</a>: How to indicate whether RDF
|
|
embedded in another document is asserted</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-assertion">rdfms-assertion</a>: RDF is not just a data
|
|
model; an RDF statement is an assertion.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfxml-literals-in-collections">rdfxml-literals-in-collections</a>:
|
|
RDF collection syntax should allow literals.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-lang-vocab">rdfs-lang-vocab</a>: request for a richer
|
|
vocabularly for languages</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-fyi">rdfs-fyi</a>: A request for a semantics free
|
|
predicate for comments.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-layered-subset">rdfs-layered-subset</a>: A request to
|
|
define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdf-mapping-lists-and-containers">rdf-mapping-lists-and-containers</a>:
|
|
A request to define a formal semantic relationship between lists and
|
|
containers.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-syntax-incomplete">rdfms-syntax-incomplete</a>:
|
|
The RDF/XML syntax can't represent an an arbritary graph structure.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdf-fragids-in-embedded-rdf">rdf-fragids-in-embedded-rdf</a>:
|
|
Defining the interpretation of fragment identifiers in RDF embedded
|
|
in other document formats.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdf-plain-and-xml-literals">rdf-plain-and-xml-literals</a>: An
|
|
XML literal without markup, e.g. "foo" should denote the
|
|
same thing as the plain literal "foo".</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#test-manifest-semantics">test-manifest-semantics</a>: The test
|
|
cases manifest format has a semantic error.</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h2><a name="Objections" id="Objections">Objections</a></h2>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Objections at Last Call</h3>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes">Datatypes Solution</a>, <a href="mailto:aswartz@upclink.com">Aaron
|
|
Swartz</a> (IWA/HWG) <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0137.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0137.html</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes">Datatypes Solution</a>, <a href="mailto:mdean@bbn.com">Mike Dean</a>
|
|
(Invited Expert) <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0173.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0173.html</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Objections at 2nd Last Call</h3>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes">Datatypes Solution</a>, <a href="mailto:aswartz@upclink.com">Aaron
|
|
Swartz</a> (IWA/HWG) <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0137.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0137.html</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes">Datatypes Solution</a>, <a href="mailto:mdean@bbn.com">Mike Dean</a>
|
|
(Invited Expert) <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0173.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0173.html</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li>RDF(S) Closure Rules, <a
|
|
href="mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com">Peter F.
|
|
Patel-Schneider</a> (ATT) <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0363.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0363.html</a>,
|
|
sections 9a, 9b and 9c. See also last call comments <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04">pfps-04</a>
|
|
and <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05">pfps-05</a>. (Subsequently <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0106.html">withdrawn</a> in the light of <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0090.html">modifications</a> to the semantics document.)</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure">Removal of External Language Information from XML Literals</a>, <a
|
|
href="mailto:w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org">I18N</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2003/09/ri434.html">http://www.w3.org/2003/09/ri434.html</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf">Failure to revise the RDF/XML syntax</a>, <a
|
|
href="mailto:w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org">XML Schema</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0014.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0014.html</a>
|
|
and <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0015.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0015.html</a>.
|
|
See also last call comments <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10">xmlsch-10</a>,
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-11">xmlsch-11</a>
|
|
and <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-12">xmlsch-12</a>.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Objections at Request to Advance to Proposed Recommendation (provisional)</h3>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes">Datatypes Solution</a>, <a href="mailto:aswartz@upclink.com">Aaron
|
|
Swartz</a> (IWA/HWG) <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0137.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0137.html</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes">Datatypes Solution</a>, <a href="mailto:mdean@bbn.com">Mike Dean</a>
|
|
(Invited Expert) <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0173.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0173.html</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure">Removal of External Language Information from XML Literals</a>, <a
|
|
href="mailto:w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org">I18N</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2003/09/ri434.html">http://www.w3.org/2003/09/ri434.html</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf">Failure to revise the RDF/XML syntax</a>, <a
|
|
href="mailto:w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org">XML Schema</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0014.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0014.html</a>
|
|
and <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0015.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0015.html</a>.
|
|
See also last call comments <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10">xmlsch-10</a>,
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-11">xmlsch-11</a>
|
|
and <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-12">xmlsch-12</a>.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Closed Issues</h2>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-aboutEach-on-object">rdfms-aboutEach-on-object</a> How
|
|
should an rdf:aboutEach attribute on an object of a statement be
|
|
handled?</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity">rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity</a>:
|
|
Containers match both the container specific grammar productions 6.25
|
|
through 6.31 and the typed node production 6.13.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema">rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema</a>:
|
|
The RDF Model collection classes (Bag, Seq, Alt) require parsers to have
|
|
special knowledge of container semantics, making it difficult to subclass
|
|
these</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion">rdf-ns-prefix-confusion</a>: the RDF
|
|
Model and Syntax spec is unclear about when rdf: prefix is needed</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-empty-property-elements">rdfms-empty-property-elements</a>:
|
|
The interpretation of empty property elements is unclear.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdf-containers-formalmodel ">rdf-containers-formalmodel</a>:
|
|
Formal Model for Containers.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty">rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty</a>:
|
|
Is a sub-property of rdfs:subPropertyOf necessarily transitive?</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf">rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf</a>:
|
|
Cycles of subClassOf properties are prohibited (Frank Manola)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfs-no-cycles-in-subPropertyOf">rdfs-no-cycles-in-subPropertyOf</a>:
|
|
Cycles of subPropertyOf properties are prohibited (Frank Manola)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-identity-anon-resources">rdfms-identity-anon-resources</a>:
|
|
What URI if any, identifies an anonymous resource (Graham Klyne)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-syntax-desc-clarity">rdfms-syntax-desc-clarity</a>: The
|
|
language describing the syntax is unclear.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-formal-grammar">rdfms-formal-grammar</a>: A formal
|
|
grammar for RDF.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfs-constraint-properties-resources">rdfs-constraint-properties-resources</a>:
|
|
Eliminate contraint properties and resources?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-resource-semantics">rdfms-resource-semantics</a>: What
|
|
is a resource and how does it relate to other concepts such as URI and
|
|
entity?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-logical-terminololgy">rdfms-logical-terminology</a>:
|
|
RDF terminology conflicts with the well established terminology used by
|
|
logicians.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-domain-and-range">rdfs-domain-and-range</a>: Should a
|
|
property be allowed more than one rdfs:range property? What should the
|
|
semantics of multiple domain and range properties be? (Dan Brickley)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-domain-unconstrained">rdfs-domain-unconstrained</a>: The
|
|
rdfs:domain and rdfs:range constraints for rdfs:domain are missing from
|
|
the RDF Schema for RDF Schema (Dan Brickley)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-primitive-properties">rdfs-primitive-properties</a>: A
|
|
suggestion that properties such as rdfs:subClassOf, rdf:type and others
|
|
should not be instances of rdf:Property, but should be primitive</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics">rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics</a>:
|
|
The inheritance semantics of the subPropertyOf relationship needs to be
|
|
clarified.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-versioning">rdfs-versioning</a>: RDF Schema does not
|
|
deal adequately with versioning.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdf-equivalent-representations">rdf-equivalent-representations</a>:
|
|
RDF Model and Syntax employs various representations when describing the
|
|
RDF abstract model. Are they really equivalent?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-logical-formalism">rdfms-logical-formalism</a>: RDF as
|
|
currently defined, cannot be expressed as a logical formalism.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about">rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about</a>:
|
|
What is the difference between using an rdf:ID attribute to 'create' a
|
|
new resource and an rdf:about attribute to refer to it? (Aaron
|
|
Swartz)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-abouteach">rdfms-abouteach</a>: processing
|
|
rdf:aboutEach requires a processing of sub-property relations</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-reification-required">rdfms-reification-required</a>:
|
|
MUST a parser create bags of reified statements for all Description
|
|
elements?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-qname-uri-mapping">rdfms-qname-uri-mapping</a>: The
|
|
mapping of QNames to URI's generates incorrect URI's.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr">rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr</a> :
|
|
Clarify the interpretation of an ID attribute in the propertyElt
|
|
production within a Description element with a distributive
|
|
referrant.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdf-terminologicus">rdf-terminologicus</a>: The RDF community
|
|
needs a precise terminology to enable it to discuss issues.(Martyn
|
|
Horner)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-graph">rdfms-graph</a>: Formal description of the
|
|
properties of an RDF graph.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-literals-as-resources">rdfms-literals-as-resources</a>:
|
|
Consider replacing literals with resources whose URI uses the data: URI
|
|
scheme.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-uri-substructure">rdfms-uri-substructure</a>: xmlns,
|
|
uri+name pairs or just uris..? Clarification needed (Sergey Melnik)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-boolean-valued-properties">rdfms-boolean-valued-properties</a>:
|
|
Suggestion for a standard way to represent boolean valued properties.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr">rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr</a>:
|
|
The propertyElt production 6.12 of the grammar does not allow both an ID
|
|
attribute and a resource attribute to be specified (owner Dave
|
|
Beckett)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-nested-bagIDs">rdfms-nested-bagIDs</a>: What triples
|
|
are generated for nested description elements with bagIDs?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-rdf-names-use">rdfms-rdf-names-use</a>: unusual or
|
|
illegal use of names from the rdf namespace</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-replace-value">rdfms-replace-value</a>: Suggestion that
|
|
the rdf:value property be replaced by rdf:toString.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-editorial">rdfms-editorial</a>: General editorial
|
|
comments.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-fragments">rdfms-fragments</a>: Confusing semantics of
|
|
# fragments</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-xmllang">rdfms-xmllang</a>: Why isn't xml:lang
|
|
information represented within the RDF data model?</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure">rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure</a>
|
|
: A literal containing XML markup is not a simple string, but is an XML
|
|
structure.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-identity-of-statements">rdfms-identity-of-statements</a>:
|
|
Does the model allow different statements with the same
|
|
subject/predicate/object?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdf-formal-semantics">rdf-formal-semantics</a>: The RDF Model
|
|
and Syntax Rec and RDF Schema CR do not provide a formal specification of
|
|
the semantics of RDF.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces">rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces</a>:
|
|
How should a parser process namspaces in a literal which is XML
|
|
markup?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-xml-base">rdfms-xml-base</a>: How does xml-base affect
|
|
RDF?.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#mime-types-for-rdf-docs">mime-types-for-rdf-docs</a>: What
|
|
mime type should RDF Schema and other RDF documents have?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdf-charmod-literals">rdf-charmod-literals</a>: Does the
|
|
treatment of literals conform to charmod ?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-para196">rdfms-para196</a>: treatment of namespace URIs
|
|
beginning with the URI named in parag 196 of M+S</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics">rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics</a>:
|
|
Must the value of an rdfs:isDefinedBy property be a schema?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdf-namespace-change">rdf-namespace-change</a>: Should the
|
|
rdf: and/or rdfs: namespace URI refs be changed</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-editorial">rdfs-editorial</a>: General editorial
|
|
comments.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance">rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance</a>:
|
|
Suggestion of clearer discussion of use of subClass and instance
|
|
relationships simultaneously.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdf-charmod-uris">rdf-charmod-uris</a>: Does the treatment of
|
|
uris conform to charmod ?</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfs-container-membership-superProperty">rdfs-container-membership-superProperty</a>:
|
|
There is a need for a superproperty of all the container membership
|
|
properties.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfs-constraining-containers">rdfs-constraining-containers</a>:
|
|
Should it be possible to constrain the members of a container to be of a
|
|
given type?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property">rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property</a>:
|
|
Clarify whether a Property can have a subClassOf property, and if so,
|
|
what that would mean?</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-online-char-encoding">rdfs-online-char-encoding</a>:
|
|
There is problem with the character encoding of the online RDF
|
|
Schema.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance">rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance</a>:
|
|
Suggestion of clearer discussion of use of subClass and instance
|
|
relationships simultaneously.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-duplicate-member-props">rdfms-duplicate-member-props</a><a>:
|
|
may a container have duplicate containerMembership properties?</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-seq-representation">rdfms-seq-representation</a>: The
|
|
ordinal property representation of containers does not support recursive
|
|
processing of containers in languages such as Prolog.</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#faq-html-compliance">faq-html-compliance</a><a>: The
|
|
suggested way of including RDF meta data in HTML is not compliant with
|
|
HTML 4.01 or XHTML</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes">rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes</a>: A
|
|
suggestion that the RDF Schema Spec might usefully use XML Schema
|
|
datatypes in examples and/or in some formal specification of the mapping
|
|
of these datatypes into the RDF model. (Sergey Melnik)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h2><a id="issues-details" name="issues-details">Issue Detail</a></h2>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-contexts" name="rdfms-contexts">Issue rdfms-contexts</a>: Suggestion that the concept of context is missing
|
|
from RDF.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://public.research.mimesweeper.com/RDF/RDFContexts.html">Raised</a>
|
|
???, 31 Aug 2000 by <a href="mailto:GK@Dial.pipex.com">Graham Klyne</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The idea of contexts has occurred on several occasions on the
|
|
mailing lists. Graham Klyne has written a detailed paper on the issue, and
|
|
there are other uses of the term, e.g. in N3.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Mar/0216.html">Representing
|
|
the Differences Between two Models?</a>, Arnold de Vos (Wed, 28 Mar
|
|
2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0388.html">N3
|
|
contexts vs RDF reification</a>, Lee Jonas (Tue, 24 Apr 2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed (<a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020617-f2f/">decision</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0096.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-quoting" name="rdfms-quoting">Issue rdfms-quoting</a>: The syntax needs a more convenient way to express
|
|
the reification of a statement.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Jan/0079.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 by <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org">Tim Berners-Lee</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The syntax currently allows the expression of the reification of
|
|
a statement by describing a resource with four properties. A more convenient
|
|
way of doing this is desirable. Tim is currently using parseType="Quote".</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See Also:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><a href="#rdfms-contexts">rdfms-contexts</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Mar/0216.html">Representing
|
|
the Differences Between two Models</a>, Arnold de Vos (Wed, 28
|
|
Mar2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0188.html">Quoting
|
|
triples: An RDF fragment identifier syntax</a>, Jonathan Borden (Sat, 14
|
|
Apr 2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Postponed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0581.html">decision</a>,
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0202.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris" name="rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris">Issue rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris</a>: The RDF XML syntax cannot
|
|
represent all possible Property URI's.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Feb/0120.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 by <a href="mailto:GK@NineByNine.org">Graham Klyne</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The RDF XML syntax uses XML qnames to represent property URI's.
|
|
However, not all possible property URI's, for example,
|
|
http://acme.com/property/ can be represented in this manner. This is an
|
|
example of a more general issue, that the RDF XML syntax cannot represent all
|
|
possible RDF models.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0124.html">Addressing
|
|
the QName to URI mapping problem</a>, Patrick Stickler (Tue, 21 Aug
|
|
2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Postponed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0581.html">decision</a>,
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0201.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values" name="rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values">Issue rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values</a>: Suggestion that Qnames should be
|
|
allowed as values for attributes such as rdf:about.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001AprJun/0028.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 18 Apr 2001 by <a href="mailto:GK@NineByNine.org">Graham Klyne</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently, resource identifier values specified in attributes such as
|
|
"about", "resource", "aboutEach" and "type" are specified as URI-references.
|
|
The same resources used in element or attribute names are specified as
|
|
Qnames. Other specifications permit the use of Qnames in attribute values. It
|
|
would enhance readability of RDF were also to do so.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0124.html">Addressing
|
|
the QName to URI mapping problem</a>, Patrick Stickler (Tue, 21 Aug
|
|
2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Postponed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0581.html">decision</a>,
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0200.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-syntax-incomplete" name="rdfms-syntax-incomplete">Issue rdfms-syntax-incomplete</a>: The RDF/XML syntax can't represent an an
|
|
arbritary graph structure.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0211.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 by <a href="mailto:Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk">Jan Grant</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: A graph which contains an anonymous resource which is the object
|
|
of two statements cannot be represented in the RDF/XML syntax unless a URI is
|
|
assigned to the resource.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In a nutshell, there is no way to represent the following (n-triple) model
|
|
in RDF/XML:</p>
|
|
<pre> _:a1 <http://random.ioctl.org/#p1> _:a2 .
|
|
_:a2 <http://random.ioctl.org/#p2> _:a1 .
|
|
See Also: <a href="#rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris">rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris</a></pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>On 26th July 2002, the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0163.html">decided</a>
|
|
to re-open this issue and accept the <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0080.html">proposal</a>
|
|
(as amended) to add an rdf:nodeID to the syntax for specifying blank nodes in
|
|
triple subject and object positions.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Postponed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0581.html">decision</a>,
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0199.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf" name="rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf">Issue rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf</a>: RDF embedded in XHTML and other XML
|
|
documents is hard to validate.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0374.html">raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 23 Apr 2001 by <a href="mailto:lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk">Lee
|
|
Jonas</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: RDF has an "open grammar, which is harder to validate simply (and
|
|
nigh on impossible to do properly with DTDs). - Syntax validation within the
|
|
context of RDF embedded in other XML grammars would be easier if the RDF
|
|
syntax were only of the 'Fixed-Schema' variety, see
|
|
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0346.html ].
|
|
Currently, the propertyElt construct, and abbreviated forms of RDF are of the
|
|
'Schema-follows-data' variety.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 9th November 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html">resolved</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The WG resolves to postpone rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf for later
|
|
consideration on the grounds that it is out of scope of its current charter
|
|
to change the current RDF/XML syntax to the extent necessary to address
|
|
it.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>During the last call process of the RDFCore WG further comments (<a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10">xmlsch-10</a>,
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10">xmlsch-12</a>)
|
|
in a similar vein were received and again the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0361.html">decided</a>
|
|
to postpone. There are strong calls for a new XML syntax for RDF; note Mark
|
|
Butler's <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0153.html">comment</a> on the postponement decision.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0266.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><a href="#objections">Objections</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<ul> <li>XML Schema <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0014.html">objects</a>,
|
|
and <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0015.html">again</a>
|
|
to postponing this issue. See also last call comments <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10">xmlsch-10</a>,
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-11">xmlsch-11</a>
|
|
and <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-12">xmlsch-12</a>.</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
The RDFCore WG asks the director support the working group's design
|
|
despite the outstanding dissent on the grounds that:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> Whilst RDFCore considers the goal to be desirable, the
|
|
RDFCore WG was explicitly forbidden in its <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter">charter</a> from
|
|
designing a new syntax.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>RDFCore did not find a small modification to the current
|
|
syntax that it considered to be within in its charter that would
|
|
achieve this goal</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>RDFCore did not seek to extend its charter to enable it to tackle
|
|
this task on the grounds that it has already heavily overrun its
|
|
schedule and did not wish to delay publishing its other work.</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-equivalent-uris" name="rdf-equivalent-uris">Issue rdf-equivalent-uris</a>: Should RDF have a mechanism for declaring two
|
|
uri's to be equivalent?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Jan/0050.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Wed, Jan 19 2000 by <a href="mailto:eric@openly.com">Eric Hellman</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Given web principles, there can in general be no centralised
|
|
authority which defines the 'correct' URI for any given entity. Should the
|
|
core RDF specs define a property that specifies two resources to be
|
|
equivalent?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On the 9th November 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>Whilst the WG recognises the importance of a mechanism for defining
|
|
equivalence of URI's, the WG has decided it does not fit within the scope
|
|
of its current charter. The WG notes that DAML+OIL has an equivalence
|
|
mechanism which raises the question of which layer of the stack best suits
|
|
such functionality. The WG also notes that by allowing cycles in
|
|
rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:subClassOf RDF Schema provides a related
|
|
mechanism for properties and classes. Consideration of this issue will be
|
|
postponed.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0264.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-bnode-predicates" name="rdf-bnode-predicates">Issue rdf-bnode-predicates</a>: Request to allow b-nodes as property
|
|
labels</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0092.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Sun, 18 Aug 2002 by <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org">Tim Berners-Lee</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: A request that the predicate of a statement may be a b-node to
|
|
enable expression of the form:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>{?x [ :inverse ?p] ?y} => { ?y :p :x }</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-containers-otherapproaches" name="rdf-containers-otherapproaches">Issue rdf-containers-otherapproaches</a>: The design of the RDF Model
|
|
collection classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be augmented
|
|
with a 'better' design?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The use of special property names (_1, _2, etc.) can really be quite
|
|
awkward for expressing ordering. It means that it can be very difficult to
|
|
add new members to a collection after the event, since the agent doing the
|
|
adding cannot be sure of knowing what property name to use. This seems to
|
|
violate the idea of being able to add new RDF statements to any resource at
|
|
any time.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>For non-ordered collections, why not just use 'li' properties? (I
|
|
suppose one answer would be if multiple instances of a triple are not
|
|
allowed.)</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>For ordered collections, why not a linked graph structure -- e.g. a
|
|
'Cons' class with 'car' and 'cdr' properties?</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>It has also been suggested that:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
a decent set of collection abstractions should provide for sets</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>See also:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0040.html">Meaning
|
|
of ALT</a>, Ray Fergerson (Wed, 06 Sep 2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0026.html">a
|
|
'null' value for rdf:Seq?</a>, Jeen Broekstra (Fri, 16 Feb 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0171.html">Re:
|
|
Reification of Sets (of RDF Statement, for Queries)</a>, Sandro Hawke
|
|
(Fri, 13 Apr 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-seq-representation">rdfms-seq-representation</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>this has proved a common concern on www-rdf-interest and www-rdf-comments.
|
|
We need an overview of the various concerns and alternative proposals.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 15th February 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>the WG resolves this issue is out of scope for this WG but places the
|
|
issue on the list of to be considered by a future WG.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: for consideration by a future WG</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-embedded" name="rdf-embedded">Issue rdf-embedded</a>: How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another
|
|
document is asserted</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0168.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Sun, 18 Aug 2002 by <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org">Tim Berners-Lee</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: When RDF is embedded in another document, it is the enclosing
|
|
document which determines whether the RDF statements are asserted. How should
|
|
it indicate this to an RDF processor?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Issue <a id="rdfxml-literals-in-collections" name="rdfxml-literals-in-collections">rdfxml-literals-in-collections</a>: RDF collection syntax should allow
|
|
literals.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0322.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 08 Mar 2001 by <a href="mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu">Jim Hendler</a> as a
|
|
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#hendler-01">last
|
|
call comment</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The parseType="Collection" syntax permits the compact
|
|
representation of lists of resource, but not of literals.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See Also:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0335.html">Web
|
|
Ontology Working Group Consensus Review of RDF Core documents</a></li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0588.html">Re:
|
|
[closed] hendler-01 literals in parsetype collection</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>On 11 Mar 2003, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0068.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>RDFCore resolves to postpone this issue on the grounds that it would
|
|
require extensive changes to current spec, is not a critical requirement
|
|
for webont, that it would involve considering several different approaches,
|
|
taking time and consequent changes to syntax draft, test cases,
|
|
implementations and primer.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-assertion" name="rdfms-assertion">Issue rdfms-assertion</a>: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is
|
|
an assertion.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0077.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 08 Mar 2001 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a
|
|
semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion
|
|
of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it
|
|
had been published in, say, a newspaper.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>On 23rd August 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0224.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>that the text in section 2.3.2 of the <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Aug/0003.html">Concepts
|
|
and Abstract Data Model</a> document resolves this issue and it be
|
|
closed.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>However in the light of <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-14">last call
|
|
comments</a>, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0068.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>PROPOSED by GK to strike section 4 from concepts document see:
|
|
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0029.html</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>SECONDED by EM</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>CARRIED with no objection or abstentions.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>ACTION 2003-03-11#2, GK: Delete section 4 of concepts document</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>ACTION 2003-03-11#3, BWM: Move issue rdfms-assertion to postponed</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>ACTION 2003-03-11#4, EDs: Document editors to review documents for
|
|
consequential changes</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>ACTION 2003-03-11#5, EM: Raise issue with SWCG "to prioritize further
|
|
discussion ..."</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>ACTION 2003-03-11#7, GK: Respond to (various people) on pfps-14</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>See Also: The tag issue <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#rdfURIMeaning-39">rdfURIMeaning</a>
|
|
and the discussion in the <a href="
|
|
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/">semantic web
|
|
meaning forum</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-lang-vocab" name="rdfs-lang-vocab">Issue rdfs-lang-vocab</a>: a request for a richer vocabularly for
|
|
languages</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0460.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Fri, 28 Feb 2003 as a <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#tex-02">last call
|
|
comment</a> by <a href="mailto:tex@i18nguy.com">Tex Texin</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: A request that there be a mechanism to enable applications to
|
|
take into account the relationship between different languages when doing
|
|
language comparisons, i.e. that "en" is, in some sense, a generalisation of
|
|
"en-US". This issue has been combined with a WG decision to add a postponed
|
|
issue to define URI's for languages.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Consideration of this issue should also include consideration of
|
|
standard mechanisms for representing language information about literals as
|
|
triples in an RDF graph.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 04 Apr 2003, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0128.html">resolved</a>
|
|
to postpone this issue.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-fyi" name="rdfs-fyi">Issue rdfs-fyi</a>: A request for a semantics free predicate for
|
|
comments.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0338.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Fri, 20 Feb 2003 as a <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horrocks-01">last
|
|
call comment</a> by <a href="mailto:horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk">Ian
|
|
Horrocks.</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Ian notes that rdfs:comment has semantics, in the sense that a
|
|
change to an rdfs:comment changes the formal meaning of an ontology. Ian
|
|
requests a facility for 'real' comments that have no semantics. Rather than
|
|
change rdfs:comment, Dan Connolly <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0071.html">suggested</a>
|
|
adding a new property.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 11 Apr 2003, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0207.html">resolved</a>
|
|
not to change the semantics of rdfs:comment, and on 02 May 2003 it <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0031.html">resolved</a>
|
|
to postpone this issue.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-layered-subset" name="rdfs-layered-subset">Issue rdfs-layered-subset</a>: A request for the definintion of a more
|
|
conventional layered subset of RDFS.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0266.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Fri, 15 Feb 2003 as a <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pan-01">last call
|
|
comment</a> by <a href="mailto:pan@cs.man.ac.uk">Jeff Pan .</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Jeff and others (see also <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-03">qu-03</a>)
|
|
have requested the defintion of a subset of RDFS that follows a more
|
|
conventional layered architecture, where for example, rdfs:Class is not a
|
|
member of itself.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 18 Jul 2003, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0236.html">resolved</a>
|
|
to create a postponed issue to ensure that it is considered by a future
|
|
WG.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-mapping-lists-and-containers" name="rdf-mapping-lists-and-containers">Issue: rdf-mapping-lists-and-containers</a>: A request to define a formal
|
|
semantic relationship between lists and containers.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0299.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 01 Sep 2003 as a last call comment by <a
|
|
href="mailto:tolle@dbis.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de">Karsten Tolle</a> .</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: A request to define a formal semantic relationship between lists
|
|
and containers.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-fragids-in-embedded-rdf" name="rdf-fragids-in-embedded-rdf">Issue: rdf-fragids-in-embedded-rdf</a>: Defining the interpretation of fragment identifiers in RDF embedded in other document formats.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0143.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 10 Nov 2003 <a href="mailto:duerst@w3.org">Martin Duerst</a>
|
|
.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Specifications for languages that embed RDF in them should
|
|
defer to the RDF specs for the interpretation of fragment identifiers
|
|
defined in embedded RDF.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Discussion:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Consider say, an SVG document, that contains embedded RDF that
|
|
defines a fragment identifier. The SVG specification should say that
|
|
the fragment identifier should be treated as an RDF fragment
|
|
identifier. It has been suggested that this may be a general issue
|
|
for the TAG about the treatment of fragment identifiers when one
|
|
language is embedded in another.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h3><a
|
|
id="rdf-plain-and-xml-literals"
|
|
name="rdf-plain-and-xml-literals">Issue rdf-plain-and-xml-literals</a>:
|
|
An XML literal without markup, e.g. "foo" , should denote
|
|
the same thing as the plain literal. "foo".</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0120.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 07 Nov 2003 as a second last call comment by <a
|
|
href="mailto:duerst@w3.org">Martin Duerst</a> .</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>A request that:</p>
|
|
<pre>
|
|
_:a eg:prop "foo"^^rdf:XMLLiteral .
|
|
|
|
rdf entails
|
|
|
|
_:a eg.:prop "foo" .
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<p> and vice versa.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 07 Nov 2003 the RDFCore WG <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/0063.html">resolved</a> to postpone this issue with the rationale:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The lack of semantic equivalence between XMLLiterals and plain
|
|
literals has been clear since the first WD of RDF Concepts, and
|
|
was arguable in RDF Model and Syntax.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The RDF Semantics does not preclude RDF applications using additional
|
|
information to determine that two literals are equivalent, but does not
|
|
mandate that they should be.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Hence, RDF applications which require this equivalence may operate
|
|
in such a mode, and so this issue is not a show stopper.</p>
|
|
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0164.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="test-manifest-semantics" name="test-manifest-semantics">Issue
|
|
test-manifest-semantics</a>: The test manifest format has a semantic error.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0120.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 07 Nov 2003 as a second last call comment by <a
|
|
href="mailto:sandro@w3.org">Sandro Hawke</a> .</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Sandro observes that the manifest format has an error.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: postponed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0174.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2><a id="closed-issues" name="closed-issues">Closed Issues</a></h2>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-ns-prefix-confusion" name="rdf-ns-prefix-confusion">Issue rdf-ns-prefix-confusion</a>: the RDF Model and Syntax spec is unclear
|
|
about when rdf: prefix is needed</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0019.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a> (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0065.html">writeup</a>
|
|
by Lee Jonas).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: unqualified RDF attributes on element types in the RDF namespace
|
|
are _not_ equivalent to attributes with the RDF prefix.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>see also: <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#uniqAttrs">Namespaces
|
|
REC</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/03/08/namespaces/myth1.html#myth4">Namespace
|
|
Myths article</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0007.html">Problem
|
|
with the "rdf" namespaces in RDF Model & Syntax</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>Analysis: According to (the non-normative) Appendix A.2 in the
|
|
'Namespaces in XML' spec, attributes with a prefix are in the 'Global
|
|
Attribute Partition' wheras attributes without a prefix are in the
|
|
'Per-Element-Type Partition'. Hence rdf:resource and resource may share a
|
|
localpart. However they are entirely distinct entities (at least
|
|
syntactically).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Examples in the RDF spec interchange the qualified and unqualified
|
|
attributes at different points. Specifically 'rdf:about', 'rdf:type',
|
|
'rdf:resource', and 'rdf:value'. The tendancy in the spec is to use
|
|
unqualified attributes for basic RDF syntax examples and qualified
|
|
attributes for second and third RDF abbreviated form examples - in these
|
|
cases the element type is (usually) not in the RDF namespace, so the
|
|
attribute is given the RDF prefix.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>A suggested solution is to use global (qualified) attributes throughout.
|
|
In order to make the syntax slightly more forgiving, parsers should treat
|
|
any per-element-type attributes on RDF elements the same as their global
|
|
counterparts.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Mar/0207.html">Attributes
|
|
and Namespaces.</a>, Lewis Hart (Tue, 27 Mar 2001.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0134.html">Sirpac
|
|
Errors?</a>, John Punin (Wed, 28 Mar 2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>On 25th May 2001, the WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2000/11/mr76/rdfc25May.html">decided</a> that ALL
|
|
attributes must be namespace qualified. There is a <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0278.html">description</a>
|
|
of the decision, including detail on the grammar productions affected and a
|
|
collection of <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/">test
|
|
cases</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-0021" name="rdfms-0021"></a><a
|
|
id="rdfms-abouteachprefix" name="rdfms-abouteachprefix">Issue
|
|
rdfms-abouteachprefix</a>: Something should be done about
|
|
aboutEachPrefix construct</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Feb/0172.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Tue, 29 Feb 2000 by <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org">mailto:timbl@w3.org</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Is it best to put it off to a level of logic above the basic
|
|
RDF?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See also:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>search of RDF list archives for <a
|
|
href="http://search.w3.org/Public/cgi-bin/query?mss=simple&pg=q&what=web&filter=lists&fmt=.&q=%2Bwww-rdf+%2BaboutEachPrefix">"aboutEachPrefix"</a></li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#URIPrefix">Model+Syntax
|
|
REC, 3.4. Containers Defined By A URI Pattern</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>On 1st June 2001, the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0008.html">decided</a>
|
|
that <code>aboutEachPrefix</code> would be removed from the RDF Model and
|
|
Syntax Recommendation on the grounds that there is a lack of implementation
|
|
experience, and it therefore should not be in the recommendation. A future
|
|
version of RDF may consider support for this feature.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-empty-property-elements" name="rdfms-empty-property-elements">Issue rdfms-empty-property-elements</a>: The interpretation of empty property
|
|
elements is unclear.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0060.html">raised</a>
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2001 by <a href="mailto:ottoka@cs.tu-berlin.de">Karsten-A.
|
|
Otto</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: It is unclear whether an empty property element represents a
|
|
empty literal or an anonymous resource. Consider the case:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<pre><rdf:Bag>
|
|
<rdf:li></rdf:li>
|
|
</rdf:Bag></pre>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>The applicable text of section 6 of the Model and Syntax specification
|
|
states:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
3. (same as rule 3 above) If E is an empty element (no content), v is the
|
|
resource whose resource identifier is given by the resource attribute of E.
|
|
If the content of E contains no XML markup or if parseType="Literal" is
|
|
specified in the start tag of E then v is the content of E (a literal).
|
|
Otherwise, the content of E must be another Description or container and v
|
|
is the resource named by the(possibly implicit) ID or about of that
|
|
Description or container.</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>In this case E is an empty element but there is no resource identifier.
|
|
Similarly, E contains no XML markup, but has no content.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>A similar issue arises in the case:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<pre><rdf:Description>
|
|
<foo:bar />
|
|
</rdf:Description></pre>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1999-08/0001.html">Can
|
|
properties have no value?</a>, Perry A. Caro (Mon, 02 Aug 1999)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1999-09/0015.html">Re:
|
|
Can properties have no value?</a>, Ralph R. Swick (Wed, 22 Sep 1999)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>On 8th June 2001 the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0109.html">decided</a>
|
|
how empty property elements should be interpreted. The decision is fully
|
|
represented by <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-empty-property-elements/">test
|
|
cases</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-containers-formalmodel" name="rdf-containers-formalmodel">Issue rdf-containers-formalmodel</a>: Formal Model for Containers.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0113.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 09 May 2001 by <a href="mailto:danbri@w3.org">Dan Brickley</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Parags 189-193 of M+S suggest a privileged role for RDF
|
|
containers within the formal model at the heart of RDF. Furthermore, they
|
|
suggest largely unimplemented (**need to hear about Jan's implementation**)
|
|
constraints, either on XML encodings of RDF, on other (eg. database
|
|
implementations) or on both. These paragraphs are either in error (RDF does
|
|
allow for partial descriptions) or editorially redundant.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 8th June 2001 the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0109.html">decided</a>
|
|
that an RDF model may contain partial descriptions of a container. Thus an
|
|
RDF model is not contrained to have the containermembership properties
|
|
contiguous starting from rdf:_1. The following therefore, is legal RDF:</p>
|
|
<pre><code><rdf:Bag>
|
|
<rdf:_2>2</rdf:_2>
|
|
<rdf::_4>4</rdf:_4>
|
|
</rdf:Bag></code></pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity" name="rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity">Issue rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity</a>: Containers match both the
|
|
container specific grammar productions 6.25 through 6.31 and the typed node
|
|
production 6.13.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0018.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 03 Aug 2000 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The RDF grammar defined in the Model and Syntax Specification is
|
|
ambiguous. Containers such as rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq and rdf:Alt match the
|
|
container productions 6.25 through 6.31, but also match the typedNode
|
|
production (6.13). The container productions attempt to restrict what the
|
|
language can express about containers, but the ambiguity in the syntax
|
|
effectively circumvents those restrictions.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See Also:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0037.html">RDF
|
|
issue: collections</a>, Graham Klyne (Wed, 06 Sep 2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/rdf/issues/containersyntax/">A
|
|
Proposed Interpretation of RDF Containers</a>, Brian McBride, Dave
|
|
Beckett (13 Dec 2000)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>On 29th June 2001, the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0000.html">decided</a>
|
|
that containers will match the typed node production in the grammar (M&S
|
|
Section 6, production 6.13) and that the container specific productions
|
|
(productions 6.25 to 6.31) and any references to them be removed from the
|
|
grammar. rdf:li elements will be translated to rdf:_nnn elements when they
|
|
are found matching either a propertyElt (production 6.12) or a a typedNode
|
|
(production 6.13). The decision includes a set of <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/">test
|
|
cases</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema" name="rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema">Issue rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema</a>: The RDF Model collection classes
|
|
(Bag, Seq, Alt) require parsers to have special knowledge of container
|
|
semantics, making it difficult to subclass these</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0037.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Wed, Sep 06 2000 by <a
|
|
href="mailto:GK@Dial.pipex.com">GK@Dial.pipex.com</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The RDF collection classes (Bag, Seq, Alt) are somewhat irregular
|
|
in their construction from the XML syntax. Specifically, the RDF parser needs
|
|
to have special knowledge of these classes in order to recognize that the
|
|
contained rdf:li properties are really rdf:_1, rdf:_2, etc.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This in turn means that it is not possible to define RDF applications and
|
|
corresponding schema that declare subclasses of the collection classes for
|
|
specific purposes, but which can also be treated as any collection class,
|
|
because a non-schema-aware parser would not know to translate the <li>
|
|
elements into <_1>, <_2>, etc.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See Also:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/rdf/issues/containersyntax/proposal">A
|
|
Proposed Interpretation of RDF Containers</a>, Brian McBride, Dave
|
|
Beckett (13 Dec 2000)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>On 29th June 2001, the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0000.html">decided</a>
|
|
that containers will match the typed node production in the grammar (M&S
|
|
Section 6, production 6.13) and that the container specific productions
|
|
(productions 6.25 to 6.31) and any references to them be removed from the
|
|
grammar. rdf:li elements will be translated to rdf:_nnn elements when they
|
|
are found matching either a propertyElt (production 6.12) or a a typedNode
|
|
(production 6.13). The decision includes a set of <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/">test
|
|
cases</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-aboutEach-on-object" name="rdfms-aboutEach-on-object">Issue rdfms-aboutEach-on-object</a>: How should an rdf:aboutEach attribute on
|
|
an object of a statement be handled?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Aug/0138.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Tue, Aug 29 2000 by <a
|
|
href="mailto:skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de">Stefan Kokkelink</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: M&S grammar permits an rdf:aboutEach attribute to be present
|
|
on a description element which is the object of a statement. How should this
|
|
be handled?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The RDF grammar permits the following:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<pre><?xml version="1.0"?>
|
|
<RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
|
|
xmlns:DC="http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core/">
|
|
<Bag ID="pages">
|
|
<li resource="http://foo.org/foo.html" />
|
|
<li resource="http://bar.org/bar.html" />
|
|
</Bag>
|
|
<Description about="URL1">
|
|
<DC:Prop>
|
|
<Description aboutEach="#pages">
|
|
<DC:Creator>Ora Lassila</DC:Creator>
|
|
</Description>
|
|
</DC:Prop>
|
|
</Description>
|
|
</RDF></pre>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is not clear what triples a parser should generate.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Ora Lassila has stated in a <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Dec/0002.html">response</a>
|
|
that it was the intention of the working group that rdf:aboutEach attributes
|
|
should be permitted only on top level description elements.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 29th June 2001, the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0000.html">decided</a>
|
|
that rdf:aboutEach attributes are not allowed on an rdf:Description (or typed
|
|
node) element which is the object of a statement.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty" name="rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty">Issue rdfs-transitive-subSubProperty</a>: Is a sub-property of
|
|
rdfs:subPropertyOf necessarily transitive?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jan/0176.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 by <a href="mailto:stefan@db.stanford.edu">Stefan
|
|
Decker</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Is a sub-property of rdfs:subPropertyOf necessarily transitive?
|
|
<a href="mailto:horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk">Ian Horrocks</a> has provided a <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jan/0181.html">counter
|
|
example</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Aug/0149.html">decided</a>
|
|
that a subProperty of rdfs:subPropertyOf need not be transitive based on an
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Aug/0031.html">explanation</a>
|
|
provided by <a href="mailto:Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk">Jan Grant</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf" name="rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf">Issue rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf</a>: Cycles of subClassOf properties are
|
|
prohibited.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0045.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 by <a href="mailto:mcaklein@cs.vu.nl">Michel Klein</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The restriction that cycles of subClassOf relationships are
|
|
prohibited is too restrictive. Cycles of subClassOf relationships are
|
|
necessary, for example, to represent equivalence between two classes. The
|
|
submitter contends that cycles of subclass relationships are essential for
|
|
KR/Ontology languages.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Feb/0106.html">Where
|
|
DAML+OIL deviates from the RDF-Schema spec</a>, Frank van Harmelen (Sat,
|
|
04 Feb 2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: on 21st Sept 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0326.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
To resolve issue rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf by deleting the restriction
|
|
prohibiting cycles of subClassOf properties. The meaning of a cycle of
|
|
subClassOf properties being an assertion that the classes involved have the
|
|
same members. A more formal specification of the meaning will be given in
|
|
the model theory.</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf/">Test
|
|
cases</a> were also <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0249.html">approved</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-no-cycles-in-subPropertyOf" name="rdfs-no-cycles-in-subPropertyOf">Issue rdfs-no-cycles-in-subPropertyOf</a>: Cycles of subPropertyOf properties
|
|
are prohibited.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The restriction that cycles of subPropertyOf relationships are
|
|
prohibited is too restrictive.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: on 28th Sept 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0005.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
Deleting the restriction prohibiting cycles of subPropertyOf properties.
|
|
The meaning of a cycle of subPropertyOf properties is an assertion that the
|
|
properties involved in the cycle have the same members. A more formal
|
|
specification of the meaning is given in the model theory.</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-no-cycles-in-subPropertyOf/">Test
|
|
cases</a> were also <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0249.html">approved</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-identity-anon-resources" name="rdfms-identity-anon-resources">Issue rdfms-identity-anon-resources</a>: What URI if any, identifies an
|
|
anonymous resource?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Nov/0115.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Sun, Nov 21 1999 by <a href="mailto:jonas@paranormal.o.se">Jonas
|
|
Liljegren</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The Model and Syntax specification defines the concept of
|
|
anonymous resources, i.e. resources with no URI represented in the RDF graph
|
|
or XML serialization. Many parsers automatically generate URI's for such
|
|
anonymous resources in the triples they produce. Such URI's are often
|
|
referred to as genid's. Different parsers create different genid's for the
|
|
same XML input. This raises a number of questions:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Should anonymous resources have URI's?</li>
|
|
<li>If so, should the be clearly distinguishable as parser generated
|
|
URI's?</li>
|
|
<li>Should there be a standard algorithm for generating URI's which ensures
|
|
that different parsers generate the same URI's from the same source input
|
|
document?</li>
|
|
<li>How might these automatically generated URI's be affected by changes in
|
|
the source document?</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>If anonymous resources are not labelled with a URI, then it is not
|
|
possible to represent arbritary graphs with the current RDF XML syntax. For
|
|
example:</p>
|
|
<pre> [http://example1]--foo:bar-->[anon-resource]
|
|
/\
|
|
|
|
|
[http://example2]--foo:bar------+</pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0037.html">Re:
|
|
Resources and URIs - different readings of RDF M&S?</a>, Sergey
|
|
Melnik (Wed, 08 Dec 1999)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0046.html">Re:
|
|
RDF API 1.0 Draft / algorithm for anonymous URIs</a>, Sergey Melnik (Wed,
|
|
08 Dec 1999)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Jan/0054.html">Re:
|
|
Arguments against digest URIs</a>, Sergey Melnik (Wed, 19 Jan 2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0091.html">RE:
|
|
regarding rdfms-identity-anon-resources</a>, Jonathan Borden (Sat, 10 Mar
|
|
2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 19th October 2001 the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0405.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>that the RDF model theory draft of 25 September 2001
|
|
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-mt-20010925/) adequately addresses the
|
|
issue
|
|
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-identity-anon-resources/">Test
|
|
cases</a> were also approved.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0184.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-syntax-desc-clarity" name="rdfms-syntax-desc-clarity">Issue rdfms-syntax-desc-clarity</a>: The language describing the syntax is
|
|
unclear.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0006.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 20 Jul 2000 by <a href="mailto:jenglish@flightlab.com">Joe
|
|
English</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The language in section 6 describing the formal grammar is
|
|
unclear.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See Also:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001AprJun/0018.html">I
|
|
am he and you are me and we can all ID together</a>, Aaron Swartz (Mon,
|
|
16 Apr 2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 26th October 2001, the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0595.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>This issue is closed on the grounds that it is resolved by the new
|
|
approach taken to defining the syntax.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0197.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-formal-grammar" name="rdfms-formal-grammar">Issue rdfms-formal-grammar</a>: A formal grammar for RDF.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0059.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2001 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The grammar in the RDF 1.0 spec is informal and should be
|
|
replaced. Something based on XML Schema should be considerd.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/DAML-0-5-syntax">RDF Syntax: An XML
|
|
Schema Approach</a>, Dan Connolly (Aug 2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Bos/meta-bnf">A meta-grammar for
|
|
describing XML-based formats</a>, Bert Bos (8 Feb 1999)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Feb/0223.html">Specifying
|
|
the Syntax to Model Transformation</a>, Brian McBride (Thu, 22 Feb
|
|
2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001AprJun/0150.html">Proposal
|
|
for clarification of RDF</a>, Rick Jelliffe (Wed, 20 Jun 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001AprJun/0159.html">forest
|
|
grammar/tree regular expression for RDF</a>, Jonathan Borden (Thu, 21 Jun
|
|
2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 26th October 2001, the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0595.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>This issue is closed on the grounds that it is resolved by the new
|
|
approach taken to defining the syntax.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0198.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-constraint-properties-resources" name="rdfs-constraint-properties-resources">Issue rdfs-constraint-properties-resources</a>: Eliminate contraint
|
|
properties and resources?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0128.html">raised</a>
|
|
Tue 09 Oct 2001 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Are constraint properties and contraint resources useful. If not,
|
|
the eliminate them.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 9th Novemeber 2001, the WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html">resolved:</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The current mechanism, rdfs:ConstraintResource and
|
|
rdfs:ConstraintProperty, fails to serve its original purpose and should be
|
|
removed from the RDF Schema 1.0 specification. The accompanying text be
|
|
amended accordingly.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0259.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-resource-semantics" name="rdfms-resource-semantics">Issue rdfms-resource-semantics</a>: What is a resource and how does it relate
|
|
to other concepts such as URI and entity?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Nov/0106.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Sat, Nov 1999 by <a href="mailto:jonas@paranormal.o.se">Jonas
|
|
Liljegren</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: RDF describes resources. However, neither the concept of
|
|
resource, nor how it relates to other concepts such as URI and entity, are
|
|
precisely defined.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Specific questions that have arisen include:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>For a resource which is for example, a web page, is the resource the
|
|
sequence of bytes representing that web page?</li>
|
|
<li>Can two different URI's name the same resource?</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Topic Maps, as described in the <a
|
|
href="http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/core.html">XTM Core Specification</a>
|
|
distinguishes between the concept of a <em>topic</em>, a similar concept to
|
|
an RDF resource, and a <em>subject</em> which is the entity the topic
|
|
represents.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See also:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="#rdfms-literals-as-resources">rdfms-literals-as-resources</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>uri@w3.org mailing list <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/">archive</a>.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0020.html">URIs
|
|
/ URLs</a>, Pierre-Antoine Champin (Thu, 05 Apr 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0171.html">M&S
|
|
examples use confusing URL's to name students</a>, Sandro Hawke (Fri, 31
|
|
Aug 2001) (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0175.html">see
|
|
also)</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 9th November 2001 the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The WG closes rdfms-resource-semantics on the grounds that the model
|
|
theory says all that RDF is normatively going to say about the nature of
|
|
resources. Further specification of the nature of resources is the work of
|
|
other WG's.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0261.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-logical-terminololgy" name="rdfms-logical-terminololgy">Issue rdfms-logical-terminololgy</a>: RDF terminology conflicts with the well
|
|
established terminology used by logicians.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0077.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 08 Mar 2001 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The current RDF terminology is inconsistent with the long
|
|
established terminology used by logicians. For example, what RDF'er's call a
|
|
'model' is called an 'abstract syntax' by logicians. Logicians use the term
|
|
model but for something quite different.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On the 9th November 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The WG closes rdfms-logical-terminololgy on the grounds that the new
|
|
terminology introduced by the model theory adequately addresses this
|
|
issue.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0265.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-domain-and-range" name="rdfs-domain-and-range">Issue rdfs-domain-and-range</a>: Should a property be allowed more than one
|
|
rdfs:range property? What should the semantics of multiple domain and range
|
|
properties be?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0045.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 by <a href="mailto:mcaklein@cs.vu.nl">Michel Klein</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Ontology languages such as <a
|
|
href="http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/oil-rdfs.pdf">OIL</a> permit multiple
|
|
range restrictions on a property. If they are to be built on top of RDF
|
|
Schema, they require the same flexibility. There has been further discussion
|
|
on how multiple range constraints should be interpretted. Conjunctive
|
|
semantics requires that a property is constrained by the conjunction (and) of
|
|
its range constraints; disjunctive semantics require that the property is
|
|
constrained by the disjunction (or) of its range constraints. It has also
|
|
been suggested that the semantics of domain constraints be revisted, as
|
|
development experience has shown the current semantics of domain not to be
|
|
useful for inference. Further, some symmetry between rdfs:domain and
|
|
rdfs:range would be expected since the domain of a property is the range of
|
|
its inverse and vice versa.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0042.html">is
|
|
rdfs:domain useful as currently defined?</a>, Ralph Swick (Tue, 06 Jun
|
|
2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0005.html">Some
|
|
comments on the RDF Spec now that Protege 1.4 is out</a>, William Grosso
|
|
(Tue, 18 Jul 2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0048.html">Re:
|
|
is rdfs:domain useful as currently defined?</a>, Tim Berners-Lee (Mon, 11
|
|
Sep 2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0046.html">RDFS
|
|
bug "A property can have at most one range property"</a>, Tim Berners-Lee
|
|
(Mon, 11 Sep 2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0055.html">Some
|
|
thoughts on the semantics of domain and range (was: Re: RDFS bug "A
|
|
property can have at most one range property")</a>, Jeen Broekstra,
|
|
Michel Klein and Ian Horrocks (Wed, 13 Sep 2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Feb/0106.html">Where
|
|
DAML+OIL deviates from the RDF-Schema spec</a>, Frank van Harmelen (Sat,
|
|
04 Feb 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001AprJun/0050.html">Sesame's
|
|
interpretation of RDF Schema</a>, Arjohn Kampman (Sat, 27 Apr 2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 2nd August 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#decisions">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>Multiple domain and range constraints are permissable and will have
|
|
conjunctive semantics and this issue is now closed.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0335.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-domain-unconstrained" name="rdfs-domain-unconstrained">Issue rdfs-domain-unconstrained</a>: The rdfs:domain and rdfs:range
|
|
constraints for rdfs:domain are missing from the RDF Schema for RDF
|
|
Schema</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0027.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 by <a href="mailto:JTauber@bowstreet.com">James
|
|
Tauber</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The RDF representation of RDF Schema omits the rdfs:domain and
|
|
rdfs:range constraints for rdfs:domain</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 2nd August 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#decisions">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>Domain and range constraints on domain will be included in the next
|
|
version of the schema document and this issue is now closed.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0336.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-primitive-properties" name="rdfs-primitive-properties">Issue rdfs-primitive-properties</a>: A suggestion that properties such as
|
|
rdfs:subClassOf, rdf:type and others should not be instances of rdf:Property,
|
|
but should be primitive.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0041.html">raised</a>
|
|
Tues, 6th Jun 2000 by <a href="mailto:nejdl@kbs.uni-hannover.de">Wolfgang
|
|
Nejdl</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The submitter suggests that the properties rdfs:subClassOf,
|
|
rdf:type, rdfs:domain and rdfs:range should not be defined as instances of
|
|
rdf:Property, but should instead be primitive. It is contended that rdf would
|
|
then be less self referential and easier to understand. The argument is
|
|
documented in <a
|
|
href="http://www.kbs.uni-hannover.de/Arbeiten/Publikationen/2000/modeling2000/wolpers.pdf">The
|
|
RDF Schema Specification Revisited</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 2nd August 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#decisions">resoloved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The issue rdfs-primitive-properties is not a problem and will be
|
|
closed</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0337.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics" name="rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics">Issue rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics</a>: The inheritance semantics of the
|
|
subPropertyOf relationship needs to be clarified.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0045.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 by <a href="mailto:mcaklein@cs.vu.nl">Michel Klein</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The semantics of the subPropertyOf relationship is not clear with
|
|
respect to the inheritance of domain and range constraints.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: on 2nd August 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#decisions">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>subProperties inherit conjunctively the domain and range of their
|
|
superproperties</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0338.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-versioning" name="rdfs-versioning">Issue rdfs-versioning</a>: RDF Schema does not deal adequately with
|
|
versioning.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0015.html">raised</a>
|
|
Tue, 01 Aug 2000 by <a href="mailto:lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk">Lee
|
|
Jonas</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The submitter is concerned about RDF schema's, once published,
|
|
not being able to change. The introduction of a rdfs:deprecated property to
|
|
enable controlled changes to schema is suggested.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0047.html">RDFS
|
|
versioning</a>, Aaron Swartz (Wed, 21 Feb 2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 2nd August 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#decisions">decided</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>to close this issue without action since it is a known problem that is
|
|
very hard to solve and is outside the scope of this WG.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0339.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-equivalent-representations" name="rdf-equivalent-representations">Issue rdf-equivalent-representations</a>: The RDF Model and Syntax employs
|
|
various representations when describing the RDF abstract model. Are they
|
|
really equivalent?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0036.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Wed, Sep 06 2000 by <a href="mailto:conen@wi-inf.uni-essen.de">Wolfram
|
|
Conen</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>[Equivalence]: There are four RDF model "flavours" (formal/data model,
|
|
graph(ical) model, serialization syntax, triple). To what extend
|
|
(precisely) are these models (not) equivalent? (Problems related to
|
|
anonymity have been discussed, see also below, details need to be
|
|
summarized). Could trying to find transformation grammars be a solution
|
|
(preciseness, determination of equivalence)? Shouldn't this be in a
|
|
"formal" part of M&S spec?</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: this is a broad topic. Investigation into the notion of a
|
|
'better syntax' also touches on this problem: we need to be clear on the
|
|
boundaries between Model and Syntax, particularly in areas such as 'anonymous
|
|
resources' which have caused developers some confusion.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See also: <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0072.html">RDF
|
|
data model summary</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 16th November 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0561.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>The WG agrees that:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>the graph model which is the basis for the model theory</li>
|
|
<li>the n-Triples representation of an RDF graph</li>
|
|
<li>the diagrams of graphs used in documents such as the RDF Model
|
|
and Syntax document</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<p>are currently all equivalent</p>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>The WG resolves to maintain that equivalence (this is a statement of
|
|
intent rather than a certified fact)</li>
|
|
<li>The WG notes that the RDF/XML syntax as currently defined is unable
|
|
to represent an arbritary RDF graph. In particular, the RDF/XML syntax
|
|
cannot fully represent a bNode which is the object of more than one
|
|
statement.</li>
|
|
<li>The WG believes that extending the RDF/XML syntax so that it can
|
|
respresent all RDF graphs is beyond the scope of its current charter
|
|
and resolves to postpone consideration of this issue.</li>
|
|
<li>The WG actions the editor of the RDF Syntax WD to include in that
|
|
document a clear statement of the RDF graph structures that RDF/XML is
|
|
unable to represent.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0344.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-logical-formalism" name="rdfms-logical-formalism">Issue rdfms-logical-formalism</a>: RDF as currently defined, cannot be
|
|
expressed as a logical formalism.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0077.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 08 Mar 2001 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: There are gotchas in representing the current RDF model in a
|
|
logical formalism. For example, a statement is defined as triple containing
|
|
containing at least two, possibly three resources. Resources are not
|
|
reasonable things to include in a triple.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 9th November 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The WG closes rdfms-logical-formalism on the grounds that the model
|
|
theory adequately addresses this issue.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0383.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about" name="rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about">Issue rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about</a>: What is the difference
|
|
between using and ID attribute to 'create' a new resource and an about
|
|
attribute to refer to it?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Oct/0024.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 04 Oct 2000 by <a href="mailto:pachampi@caramail.com">Pierre-Antoine
|
|
CHAMPIN</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: what is the difference between writing <Description
|
|
ID="bar"> and <Description about="#bar">? Why is ID needed?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Nov/0068.html">Re:
|
|
Simpler syntax for RDF</a>, Sergey Melnik (Tue, 16 Nov 1999) suggests
|
|
that ID could cause generation of an isDefinedIn statement.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 14th December, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Dec/0108.html">resolved:</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20011218/">new syntax
|
|
WD</a> resolves this issue.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/">Test
|
|
cases</a> were also approved (though note that test 2 was not approved
|
|
pending resolution of an internationalization issue)</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: for closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0385.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a name="rdfms-abouteach" id="rdfms-abouteach">Issue rdfms-abouteach:
|
|
processing rdf:aboutEach requires a processing of sub-property
|
|
relations.</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001AprJun/0107.html">raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 04 Jun 2001 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: An RDF processor would have to process sub-property relationships
|
|
to correctly process rdf:aboutEach.</p>
|
|
<pre>For example, consider using a subproperty of rdf:_2 to specify the second member
|
|
of a collection:
|
|
|
|
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
|
|
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
|
|
xmlns:ex="http://example/vocab#">
|
|
|
|
<r:Description r:about="#books"
|
|
xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
|
|
<r:type r:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag" />
|
|
<r:_1 r:resource="#book1" />
|
|
<ex:member2 r:resource="#book2" />
|
|
<r:_3 r:resource="#book3" />
|
|
</r:Description>
|
|
|
|
<rdf:Description rdf:aboutEach="#books">
|
|
<dc:rights xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">all
|
|
mine!</dc:rights>
|
|
</rdf:Description>
|
|
|
|
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example/vocab#member2">
|
|
<rdfs:subPropertyOf
|
|
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_2"/>
|
|
</rdf:Description>
|
|
</rdf:RDF></pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>What are the members of #books? Is #book2 one of them? I can deduce, from
|
|
the specification of rdfs:subProperty, that it is. But knowledge of
|
|
rdfs:subProperty is not required for parsing rdf:aboutEach syntax, is it?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It has also been <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0008.html">suggested</a>
|
|
that aboutEach is difficult to implement for streaming parsers, which have to
|
|
retain information about containers in case they encounter a statement with a
|
|
distributive referrent to that container.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 7th December 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Dec/0089.html">resolved</a>
|
|
to remove rdf:aboutEach from the RDF specifications.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0386.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-reification-required" name="rdfms-reification-required">Issue rdfms-reification-required</a>: MUST a parser created bags of reified
|
|
statements for all Description elements?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Aug/0085.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Tue, Aug 22 2000 by <a
|
|
href="mailto:skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de">Stefan Kokkelink</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: M&S Spec says that "The Description element itself represents
|
|
an instance of a Bag resource...". Does this mean that a parser MUST create a
|
|
Bag of reified statements for every Description Element?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 11th January 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0095.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>a parser is not required to create bags of reified statements for all
|
|
rdf:Description elements, only those which are explicitly reified using an
|
|
rdf:ID on a propertyElt or by an RDF:bagID on the rdf:Description.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0009.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-qname-uri-mapping" name="rdfms-qname-uri-mapping">Issue rdfms-qname-uri-mapping</a>: The mapping of QNames to URI's generates
|
|
incorrect URI's.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0082.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 08 Mar 2001 by <a href="mailto:jborden@mediaone.net">Jonathan
|
|
Borden</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The algorithm for mapping a QName in the RDF XML syntax to a URI
|
|
is to concatenate the URI of the namespace with the localname part of the
|
|
QName. In the case of namespaces, such as the XML Schema datatypes namespace,
|
|
which do not end in a "#" character, then the URI reference generated by this
|
|
algorithm is not the same as the conventional URI for the concept.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>For example, the XML Schema QName xsd:unsignedInt is referenced using
|
|
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#unsignedInt, whereas the RDF translation
|
|
of this QName is http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchemaunsignedInt.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is proposed that the algorithm be modified, so that, when the URI of
|
|
the namespace ends in a letter or an "_" character, then the URI should
|
|
consist of the URI of the namespace concatenated with a "#" character then
|
|
concatenated with the localname.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1999-07/0012.html">XML
|
|
Namespaces vs. RDF</a>, Perry A. Caro (Tue 20 Jul 1999)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001May/0054.html">QName
|
|
Problem Isn't One</a>, Aaron Swartz (Fri, 04 May 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0124.html">Addressing
|
|
the QName to URI mapping problem</a>, Patrick Stickler (Tue, 21 Aug
|
|
2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Sep/0027.html">locally
|
|
scoped Class and Property declarations</a>, Nikita Ogievetsky (Fri, 07
|
|
Sep 2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 11th January 2002 the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0095.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The WG resolves to not change the algorithm for mapping qnames to uris
|
|
and close this issue on the grounds:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>1. Such a change would be a major change to the mapping of RDF/XML
|
|
syntax to the model and would be beyond our charter.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>2. It would cause the same RDF/XML to generate a different graph from
|
|
existing versus revised implementations</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>3. Existing code may generate wrong (illegal) graphs for some
|
|
RDF/XML.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0010.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr" name="rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr">Issue rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr</a>: Clarify the interpretation of an ID
|
|
attribute in the propertyElt production within a Description element with a
|
|
distributive referrant.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Feb/0195.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed 21 Feb 2001 by <a href="mailto:brian_mcbride@hp.com">Brian McBride</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The RDF Model and Syntax specification states in section 6 that
|
|
an rdf:ID attribute on a propertyElt [6.12] production identifies the reified
|
|
statement which the propertyElt produces. In the case where the propertyElt
|
|
is within a Description element with a distrubitive referrent, such as
|
|
aboutEach or aboutEachPrefix, the propertyElt represents many statements
|
|
which cannot all share the same ID.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>For example, what triples does the following represent:</p>
|
|
<pre><rdf:Bag rdf:ID='bag'/>
|
|
<rdf:li rdf:resource='http://foo/bag1'/>
|
|
<rdf:li rdf:resource='http://foo/bag2'/>
|
|
</rdf:Bag>
|
|
<rdf:Description rdf:aboutEach='#bag'>
|
|
<foo:bar rdf:ID='stmtId'>...</foo:bar>
|
|
</rdf:Description></pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 15th February 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>the WG resolves that this issue be closed on the grounds that with the
|
|
removal of rdf:aboutEachPrefix and rdf:aboutEach there are no distributive
|
|
referrants and the issue is mute.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0124.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-terminologicus" name="rdf-terminologicus">Issue
|
|
rdf-terminologicus</a>: The RDF community needs a precise terminology
|
|
to enable it to discuss issues.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Dec/0152.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 by <a href="mailto:dehora@acm.org">Bill de hOra</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Communication and discussion within the community interested in
|
|
RDF is hampered by lack of a disciplined terminology. It is suggested that a
|
|
glossary of terms be developed to aid effective communication. This is a
|
|
general issue for all RDF specifications.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jan/0006.html">Re:
|
|
RDF Termonologicus</a>, Graham Klyne (Mon, 1 Jan 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0057.html">Terminology
|
|
for RDF Statement Sets</a>, Sandro Hawke (Mon, 09 Apr 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0170.html">Re:
|
|
Terminology for RDF Statement Sets</a>, Charles McCathieNivile (Fri, 13
|
|
Apr 2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 15th February 2002 the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>the WG resolves that this issue is addressed by the primer and that this
|
|
issue be closed.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0125.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-graph" name="rdfms-graph">Issue rdfms-graph</a>: Formal description of the properties of an RDF
|
|
graph.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Nov/0119.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Mon, Nov 22 1999 by <a href="mailto:RDaniel@DATAFUSION.net">Ron Daniel</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The RDF Model and Syntax specification does not cover the nature
|
|
of RDF graphs in its formal model.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See Also:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><a href="#rdfms-contexts">rdfms-contexts</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The issue originally raised is whether an RDF graph should have a URI
|
|
(rdfms-uri-for-graph). There have also been proposals for algorithms for
|
|
generating URI's for RDF graphs aka models.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This is an aspect of a broader issue that the RDF Model and Syntax
|
|
recommentation discusses the concept of an RDF graph but does not
|
|
define/describe it in the RDF formal model section. The term 'model' is often
|
|
used as a synonym for an RDF graph.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1999-04/0001.html">Are
|
|
duplicate property/value pairs permitted for a resource?</a>, Samuel Yang
|
|
(Thu, 08 Apr 1999)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Nov/0079.html">Re:
|
|
RDF API</a>, Janne Saarela (Wed, 17 Nov 1999) asks whether a node can
|
|
exist in an RDF graph even if it has no properties.</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Jan/0054.html">Re:
|
|
Arguments against digest URIs</a>, Sergey Melnik (Wed, 19 Jan 2000)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 15th February 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>the WG resolve that the model theory is a formal description of the
|
|
properties of an RDF graph and that this issue be closed.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0126.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-literals-as-resources" name="rdfms-literals-as-resources">Issue rdfms-literals-as-resources</a>: Consider replacing literals with
|
|
resources whose URI uses the data: URI scheme.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a href="#rdfms-literals-as-resources">raised</a> ???, ?? ??? ???? by <a
|
|
href="">??? ???</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The RDF data model distinguishes between resources and literals.
|
|
Only resources may be the subject of a statement. The data: URI scheme
|
|
enables data to be encoded in the URI of a resource. Thus literals could be
|
|
represented as resources with data URI's. Such resources could be the subject
|
|
of a statement. Then, for example, if a string literal were represented as a
|
|
resource with a data: URI, the language of that property value, could be
|
|
represented as a property of that resource.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See Also:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><a href="#rdfms-literalsubjects">rdfms-literalsubjects</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 15th February 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>that the proposed change would be a major change to the RDF
|
|
specification and is out of scope for this WG.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-0031" name="rdfms-0031"></a><a
|
|
id="rdfms-literalsubjects" name="rdfms-literalsubjects">Issue
|
|
rdfms-literalsubjects</a>: Should the subjects of RDF statements be
|
|
allowed to be literals?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Feb/0172.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Tue, 29 Feb 2000 by <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org">mailto:timbl@w3.org</a>,</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: "The object being the union of literal types and reference to
|
|
node is reasonable: the object may be represented as a pair (type, value) for
|
|
example (or some other syntax or a pointer into a different part of memory or
|
|
a pointer to a self-typed object or whatever.) ... You could argue (and
|
|
people have i understand) that the same ought to hold for the subject of
|
|
course."</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On the 15th February 2002, at the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html">telecon</a>,
|
|
the WG:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>resolved that the current syntaxes (RDF/XML, n-triples, graph syntax)
|
|
do not allow literals as subjects.</li>
|
|
<li>noted that it is aware of no reason why literals should not be subjects
|
|
and a future WG with a less restrictive charter may extend the syntaxes
|
|
to allow literals as the subjects of statements.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0127.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-0051" name="rdfms-0051"></a><a id="rdfms-uri-substructure" name="rdfms-uri-substructure">Issue rdfms-uri-substructure</a>: xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..?
|
|
Clarification needed.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Jul/0037.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Tue, 29 Feb 2000 by <a
|
|
href="mailto:jan.grant@bristol.ac.uk">mailto:jan.grant@bristol.ac.uk</a>,</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: "an xmlns-qualified name is a pair of (namespace URI, name);
|
|
there is no composition function implied apart from the trivial 'shove both
|
|
bits into a pair'. But RDF claims that resources are (or are identified by)
|
|
URIs only; there seems to be an (implicit? explicit?) composition function
|
|
that takes the namespace and the name part and produces a URI from them."</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>A further related question has been raised. Namespaces are used as an
|
|
abbreviation in the syntax - are they syntactic sugar or part of the
|
|
model?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0124.html">Addressing
|
|
the QName to URI mapping problem</a>, Patrick Stickler (Tue, 21 Aug
|
|
2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: At the 15th February 2002 <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html">telecon</a>,
|
|
the RDFCore WG:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>resolves to close this issue on the grounds that changing how resources
|
|
are named on the web is a web architecture issue and beyond the scope of
|
|
our charter.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Whereas:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>the RDF 1.0 spec says that property and class names are computed from
|
|
element and attribute names by concatenating their namespace names with
|
|
their local names</li>
|
|
<li>it's useful to be able to process RDF with XPath and XSLT, where even
|
|
though
|
|
<dl>
|
|
<dt>concat(namespace-name(qname1), local-name(qname1))</dt>
|
|
</dl>
|
|
<p>is the same as</p>
|
|
<p>concat(namespace-name(qname2), local-name(qname2))</p>
|
|
<p>the qnames themselves may not compare equal in XPath expressions.</p>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>lots of implementors have looked for advice on how to serialize RDF,
|
|
and, in particular, how to compute a namespace name and localname from
|
|
the name of a property or a class.</li>
|
|
<li>the WG advises RDF schema/namespace/vocabulary designers choose
|
|
namespace names that end in non-xml-name-characters such as / # ?</li>
|
|
<li>we advise implementors of RDF serializers in order to break a URI
|
|
into a namespace name and a local name, split it after the last XML
|
|
non-name character. If the URI ends in a non-name-character throw a
|
|
"this graph cannot be serialized in RDF 1.0" exception.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0128.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-boolean-valued-properties" name="rdfms-boolean-valued-properties">Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties</a>: Suggestion for a standard way to
|
|
represent boolean valued properties.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>raised Sat, 08 Mar 2001 by <a href="mailto:aswartz@upclink.com">Aaron
|
|
Swartz</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>No standard vocabulary is defined for representing boolean valued
|
|
properties. The author of this suggestion proposes the introduction of two
|
|
new properties, rdf:is and rdf:isNot. To represent the fact that someone
|
|
likes chocolate, their resource could have the property rdf:is with a value
|
|
of foo:ChocolateLover.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: At the 15th February 2002 <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html">telecon</a>,
|
|
the RDFCore WG decided:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The WG notes that since a boolean-valued property can be identified with
|
|
a class, rdf:type can be used to represent boolean valued properties.
|
|
Thus:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><foo> <chocolateLover> <true> .<br />
|
|
<foo> <rdf:chocolateHater> <true> .</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>can be represented by</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateLover> .<br />
|
|
<foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateHater> .</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The WG notes that RDF(S) defines no built in mechanism for expressing
|
|
that ChocolateLover and ChocolateHater are disjoint classes. The WEBONT WG
|
|
are defining mechanisms for such expressions. The WG resolves to close this
|
|
issue.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0130.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr" name="rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr">Issue rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr</a>: The propertyElt production 6.12 of
|
|
the grammar does not allow both an ID attribute and a resource attribute to
|
|
be specified.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0153.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Fri, Dec 31 1999 by <a href="mailto:eric@openly.com">Eric Hellman</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The grammar does not permit the use of an ID attribute to assign
|
|
a URI to the reification of a statement where the object of the statement is
|
|
specified by an rdf:resource attribute.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The RDF Model and Syntax recommendation states that the value of an ID
|
|
attribute on a propertyElt production [6.12], if specified, is the identifier
|
|
for the resource that represents the reification of the statement. However,
|
|
the grammar does not permit both an ID attribute and a resource attribute to
|
|
present in the same production. Thus:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<pre><rdf:Description>
|
|
<foo:bar rdf:ID="foobar" rdf:resource="http://foobar"/>
|
|
</rdf:Description></pre>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>is not legal. This can instead be written as:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<pre><rdf:Description>
|
|
<foo:bar rdf:ID="foobar">
|
|
<rdf:Description rdf:resource="http://foobar"/>
|
|
</foo:bar>
|
|
</rdf:Description></pre>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>thus the same effect can be achieved, however the irregularity in the
|
|
language may cause confusion.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>At the RDFCore <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/">WG face to face
|
|
meeting</a> in February 2002, the WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-26-2">decided</a>:</p>
|
|
<pre> <rdf:Description>
|
|
<foo:bar rdf:ID="foo" rdf:resource="bar"/>
|
|
</rdf:Description> </pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>is legal.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This issue is now closed.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0183.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-nested-bagIDs" name="rdfms-nested-bagIDs">Issue rdfms-nested-bagIDs</a>: What triples are generated for nested
|
|
description elements with bagIDs?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0024.html">raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 12 Feb 2001 by <a
|
|
href="mailto:champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr">Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The Model and Syntax specification does not clearly specify which
|
|
reified statements are put in which bag when nested description elements have
|
|
bagID's.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>For example, which reified statements should appear in which bag for the
|
|
the following:</p>
|
|
<pre> <rdf:Description about="a" bagID="bag1">
|
|
<some:prop rdf:ID="st1">
|
|
<rdf:Description about="b" bagID="bag2">
|
|
<some:otherProp rdf:ID="st2">
|
|
A literal
|
|
</some:otherProp>
|
|
</rdf:Description>
|
|
</some:prop>
|
|
</rdf:Description></pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The RDFCore WG has <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-25-2">decided</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>A bagID reifies the property attributes on the same element as the
|
|
bagid, the type node and statements immediately arising from property
|
|
elements that are immediate children of the element containing the bagId.
|
|
In particular a property element whose statement is part of the bag, which
|
|
has property attributes, those statements are not part of the bag.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Specifically:</p>
|
|
<pre> <rdf:Description about="a" bagID="bag1">
|
|
<some:prop rdf:ID="st1">
|
|
<rdf:Description about="b" bagID="bag2">
|
|
<some:otherProp rdf:ID="st2">A literal</some:otherProp>
|
|
</rdf:Description>
|
|
</some:prop>
|
|
</rdf:Description> </pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>generates two bags. Bag1 containts st1 only. Bag2 contains st2 only.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0184.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-rdf-names-use" name="rdfms-rdf-names-use">Issue rdfms-rdf-names-use</a>: Illegal or unusual use of names from the RDF
|
|
namespace</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jul/0041.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 by <a href="mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com">Jeremy
|
|
Carroll</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Clarify the legality of the use of names from the RDF namespace,
|
|
e.g. can rdf:Bag be used as a property or can rdf:Description be used as a
|
|
property attribute etc.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0651.html">30th
|
|
November 2001</a>, the RDFCore WG:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Resolves that the use of rdf:RDF, rdf:ID, rdf:about, rdf:resource,
|
|
rdf:bagID, rdf:parseType, rdf:aboutEach and rdf:li except as reserved
|
|
names as specified in the grammar is an error.</li>
|
|
<li>resolves that test case
|
|
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test005.rdf
|
|
be obsoleted</li>
|
|
<li>resolves that a copy of that test case be created as an error
|
|
test</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>At the February face to face meeting, the WG futher <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-25-3">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The WG reaffirmed its decision not to restrict names in the RDF
|
|
namespaces which are not syntactic. The WG decided that an RDF processor
|
|
SHOULD emit a warning when encountering names in the RDF namespace which
|
|
are not defined, but should otherwise behave normally.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>And that specifically:</p>
|
|
<pre> <rdf:Description>
|
|
<rdf:foo>foo</rdf:foo>
|
|
</rdf:Description> </pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>is equivalent to:</p>
|
|
<pre> _:a <rdf:foo> "foo" .</pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0388.html">response1,</a>
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0185.html">response2</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-editorial" name="rdfms-editorial">Issue rdfms-editorial</a>: General editorial comments.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: A list of general editorial comments on the RDF Model and Syntax
|
|
specification.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1999-06/0010.html">Re:
|
|
parseType="Resource" [WAS: Modelling structured values]</a>, Perry A.
|
|
Caro (Mon, 14 Jun 1999)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0000.html">the
|
|
v namespace prefix</a>, Liam Quin (Mon, 01 Jan 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0091.html">A
|
|
Typo in RDF M&S Document</a>, Roel Apfelbaum (Thu, 09 Aug 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0171.html">M&S
|
|
examples use confusing URL's to name students</a>, Sandro Hawke (Fri, 31
|
|
Aug 2001) (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0175.html">see
|
|
also)</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-25-9">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>Given decision <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-25-8">d-2002-02-25-8</a>
|
|
[the M&S would be replaced], the editorial issues with M&S are now
|
|
not relevant to the current document set and this issue be closed.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Status: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-replace-value" name="rdfms-replace-value">Issue rdfms-replace-value</a>: Suggestion that the rdf:value property be
|
|
replaced by rdf:toString.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0029.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Sat, 17 Feb 2001 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The property rdf:value is used confusingly and inconsistently
|
|
throughout the M&S and is never defined. Some have suggested it is used
|
|
for multi-valued properties (some suggest currying is a better way to do
|
|
this) and others have claimed it is for defining the lexical representation
|
|
of a resource. It is requested that the Working Group clarify its meaning and
|
|
usage.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: This issue was <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0095.html">discussed</a>
|
|
by the RDFCore WG on 11 January 2002 which resolved:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>o resolves to not change the name of this property at this time on the
|
|
grounds:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>- insufficient reasons to make this change</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>- will cause existing uses to be illegal - such as examples in
|
|
m&s</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>o resolves to recast this issue as a need to clarify the semantics of
|
|
rdf:value.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>At the February 2002 face to face meeting, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-25-7">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>that rdf:value is a property defined in the RDF namespace</li>
|
|
<li>that the model theory state that rdf:value is a property</li>
|
|
<li>that no other model theory semantics is defined specifically for it</li>
|
|
<li>the issue be closed.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: Closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0186.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-fragments" name="rdfms-fragments">Issue rdfms-fragments</a>: Confusing semantics of # fragment / view
|
|
identifiers</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>or... "what is it that is identified?"</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Feb/0172.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Tue, 29 Feb 2000 by <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org">mailto:timbl@w3.org</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: "In the RDF (model/syntax) spec a reference to a subtree of an
|
|
XML document containing RDF is taken to be a reference to the RDF object."
|
|
(TimBL)</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>see also: "how to address RDF fragement", <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0013.html">rdf-comments
|
|
query</a> from <a href="mailto:ohto@w3.org">mailto:ohto@w3.org</a>. The <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/">xml-uri archives</a> also hold much discussion on
|
|
overlapping themes.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Analysis: this <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0014.html">detailed
|
|
summary</a> by <a href="mailto:swick@w3.org">Ralph Swick</a> notes that...</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
The question of what, exactly, a URI fragment designates in the case of an
|
|
XML document that uses the RDF namespace is indeed an area that is murky in
|
|
the spec, I have recently realized. Part of your question has, I claim, a
|
|
single consistent answer and part has several feasible answers.</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>One particular aspect of the '#' issue is that the semantics of the
|
|
fragment identifier in URI references is relative to a mime type:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
RDF uses URI-references to identify rdf resources. But the meaning of a
|
|
fragment identifier is defined only in terms of the MIME type of an entity
|
|
associated with the resource identified by the URI part. How does the RDF
|
|
square up to this? What is the MIME type according to which the fragment
|
|
identifier of an RDF resource identifier is interpreted? Does it depend on
|
|
the RDF resource involved?
|
|
<address>
|
|
Graham Klyne <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0032.html">www-rdf-interest@w3.org
|
|
from September 2000: RDF Issue Tracking</a> Wed, 06 Sep 2000 10:04:07 GMT
|
|
</address>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>This problem elaborated on with examples:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
'#' is a downright broken bit of web architecture. The '#' fragment/view
|
|
semantics are defined as being relative to the mime type of the object.
|
|
Since mime types can be content-negotiated, that's hairy since a single URI
|
|
plus '#' doesn't mean much without additional assumptions about mime types.
|
|
For example, http://www.w3.org/Icons/WWW/w3c_main has both GIF and PNG
|
|
mime-typed variants. So the semantics of
|
|
http://www.w3.org/Icons/WWW/w3c_main#foo can't be considered outside the
|
|
context of some HTTP transaction, since the mime type of the resource isn't
|
|
an instrinsic property of the resource identified.
|
|
<address>
|
|
Dan Brickley, <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Mar/0028.html">www-rdf-interest@w3.org
|
|
from March 2000: Re: Subclass of Thing/</a> Sat, 04 Mar 2000 00:24:21 GMT
|
|
</address>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jan/0006.html">Re:
|
|
RDF Termonologicus</a>, Graham Klyne (Mon, 1 Jan 2001) asks the question
|
|
whether Web Resources and RDF Resources are the same thing.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-25-10">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>that RDF uses URI's with fragment ID's to identify resources. This issue
|
|
is now closed.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>It also raised an action to draft text for the primer on th euse of
|
|
fragment id's with appropriate warnings regarding their semantics and asked
|
|
Dan Connolly to hightlight this issue with the TAG.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed(<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0188.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-xmllang" name="rdfms-xmllang">Issue rdfms-xmllang</a>: Why isn't xml:lang information represented within
|
|
the RDF data model?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: "This is a mess - it is in the syntax and not in the model.
|
|
Should have used an RDF vocabulary for language. It should be removed from
|
|
the syntax."</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Feb/0172.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Tue, 29 Feb 2000 by <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org">mailto:timbl@w3.org</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See also: <a href="#rdfms-literalsubjects">issue
|
|
rdfms-literalsubjects</a>, which raises the problem of ascribing properties
|
|
and attributes to RDF.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-26-1">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>a literal consists of three components:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>A representation of the parseType, which is a single bit</li>
|
|
<li>A language indicator which is a string as defined in XML</li>
|
|
<li>A fully normalized UNICODE string.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>The WG subsequently resolved that typed literals would not have a language
|
|
tag.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0190.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure"
|
|
name="rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure">Issue rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure: A
|
|
literal containing XML markup is not a simple string, but is an XML
|
|
stucture.</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0077.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 08 Mar 2001 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: A statement with a parseType of 'Literal' has as its object an
|
|
XML structure, not a simple string. For example, the first character of the
|
|
literal <foo>bar</foo> is not '<'.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Background:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Aug/0061.html">XML
|
|
in RDF in XML via XSLT: an infoset implementation</a>, Dan Connolly (Sun,
|
|
13 Aug 2000)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-26-1">resolved 26 Feb 2002</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>a literal consists of three components:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>A representation of the parseType, which is a single bit</li>
|
|
<li>A language indicator which is a string as defined in XML</li>
|
|
<li>A fully normalized UNICODE string</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>(<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0191.html">notice of 26 Feb 2002 decision</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Subsequently <!-- @@when? record? --> the RDFCore WG resolved to
|
|
treat XML Literals as a datatype.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>During review of the Jan 2003 last call drafts, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0138.html">resolved 9 May 2003</a>
|
|
to refine the structure of XML literals:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>Language tag is simply dropped from all typed literals including
|
|
rdf:XMLLiteral</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>The WG also decided that normalization of the string component was
|
|
not required.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
In preparation for that decision, the WG considered
|
|
<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0016.html">
|
|
four different designs</a>, for the result of an
|
|
<code>rdf:parseType="Literal"</code>:
|
|
</p>
|
|
<dl>
|
|
<dt>
|
|
A special sort of (untyped) literal
|
|
</dt>
|
|
<dd>
|
|
Such as in the
|
|
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20020829/">
|
|
29th August 2002 Working Draft</a>.
|
|
</dd>
|
|
<dt>
|
|
A special sort of typed literal.
|
|
</dt>
|
|
<dd>
|
|
Similar to the last call design. This would remain the only
|
|
datatype that can have a language identifier.
|
|
</dd>
|
|
<dt>
|
|
A normal typed literal, with an XML wrapper
|
|
</dt>
|
|
<dd>
|
|
The wrapper carries an xml:lang attribute.
|
|
</dd>
|
|
<dt>
|
|
A normal typed literal, without an XML wrapper
|
|
</dt>
|
|
<dd>
|
|
This follows
|
|
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/">Exclusive XML
|
|
Canonicalization</a>, and loses the xml:lang attribute.
|
|
This is the chosen design, in the current editors drafts.
|
|
</dd>
|
|
</dl>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Members of the WG have argued that:
|
|
</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>
|
|
The treatment of xml:lang is performed by
|
|
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/">Exclusive XML
|
|
Canonicalization</a> (which had been reviewed and accepted
|
|
by the I18N WG).
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>
|
|
An RDF specific solution to perceived deficiences in
|
|
exclusive canonicalization would not be interoperable with
|
|
other ad hoc solutions.
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>
|
|
Long term, a solution based on a generic XML solution,
|
|
perhaps not dissimilar to XML fragments, would be better.
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>
|
|
The simplicity of the current design will encourage
|
|
deployment of XMLLiteral, which will aid
|
|
internationalization concerns.
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul><br />
|
|
<br />
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
An important consideration, reflected most in the comments
|
|
from the Web Ontology WG and Patel-Schneider's concerns, is
|
|
that unless rdf:XMLLiteral is a normal datatype with no
|
|
special treatment of language, then OWL Lite and OWL DL do
|
|
not support it. No version of the OWL Abstract Syntax has
|
|
permitted literals other than plain literals (with or without
|
|
language tags) or typed literals (without a language tag).
|
|
Thus, any solution, other than the last two of the four
|
|
above, would require substantive changes to OWL DL and OWL
|
|
Lite.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
To summarize:
|
|
</p>
|
|
<table border="1">
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th></th>
|
|
<th>
|
|
Special<br />
|
|
untyped literal
|
|
</th>
|
|
<th>
|
|
Special<br />
|
|
typed literal
|
|
</th>
|
|
<th>
|
|
Wrapped normal<br />
|
|
typed literal
|
|
</th>
|
|
<th>
|
|
Normal<br />
|
|
typed literal<br />
|
|
no wrapping
|
|
</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th align="left">
|
|
<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0165.html">
|
|
use a generic<br />
|
|
datatyping mechanism</a>
|
|
</th>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th align="left">
|
|
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-rdfcadm-tbl.html#xtocid103643">
|
|
XML syntax ...<br />
|
|
arbitrary choice</a>
|
|
</th>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th align="left">
|
|
<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0539.html">
|
|
[permit] non-built-in<br />
|
|
datatype [like]<br />
|
|
rdf:XMLLiteral.</a>
|
|
</th>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th align="left">
|
|
<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0111.html">
|
|
[avoid] an<br />
|
|
RDF-specific solution<br />
|
|
[to the problem of]<br />
|
|
XML [...] context</a>
|
|
</th>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th align="left">
|
|
<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0180.html">
|
|
[avoid] smack[ing]<br />
|
|
of being a hack</a>
|
|
</th>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th align="left">
|
|
<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0023.html">
|
|
xml:lang [is]<br />
|
|
inherited</a>
|
|
</th>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th align="left">
|
|
Works with OWL<br />
|
|
Candidate Rec
|
|
</th>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
No
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>
|
|
Yes
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</table>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p><a href="#Objections">Objections</a>:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0120.html">I18N WG comments of 7 Nov</a>, including reference to
|
|
<a href="http://www.w3.org/2003/09/ri434.html">more details</a>,
|
|
note their disagreement with this design.
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-identity-of-statements" name="rdfms-identity-of-statements">Issue rdfms-identity-of-statements</a>: Does the model allow different
|
|
statements with the same subject/predicate/object?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0032.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Wed, Sep 06 by <a href="mailto:GK@Dial.pipex.com">GK@Dial.pipex.com</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
"There is a question whether or not there can be two different statements
|
|
with the same subject, object and property. Most people seem to say "no". I
|
|
have suggested that this should be allowed because it can be expressed in
|
|
reified RDF statements and that there should be a 1:1 correspondence
|
|
between what can be expressed in an RDF model and its reification. "
|
|
<address>
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0032.html">www-rdf-interest@w3.org
|
|
from September 2000: RDF Issue Tracking</a> Wed, 06 Sep 2000 10:04:07 GMT
|
|
</address>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>The RDF Model and Syntax REC says:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>This specification shows three representations of the data model; as
|
|
3-tuples (triples), as a graph, and in XML. These representations have
|
|
equivalent meaning. The mapping between the representations used in this
|
|
specification is not intended to constrain in any way the internal
|
|
representation used by implementations.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The RDF data model is defined formally as follows:</p>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>There is a set called Resources.</li>
|
|
<li>There is a set called Literals.</li>
|
|
<li>There is a subset of Resources called Properties.</li>
|
|
<li>There is a set called Statements,<br />
|
|
each element of which is a triple of the form {pred, sub, obj} Where
|
|
pred is a property (member of Properties), sub is a resource (member of
|
|
Resources), and obj is either a resource or a literal (member of
|
|
Literals).</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
<address>
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#model">Resource
|
|
Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification</a> Wed, 24
|
|
Feb 1999 14:45:07 GMT
|
|
</address>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p><strong>Notes</strong>: the set-theoretic language of the Formal RDF model
|
|
specification has often been cited on www-rdf-interest as evidence that the
|
|
'same' statement cannot appear multiple times within a given model.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This is issue is related to the extensive discussion that has occurred
|
|
concerning the distinction between statings and statements as <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0068.html">pointed
|
|
out</a> by Dan Brickley.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<pre><stmt1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
|
|
<stmt1> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
|
|
<stmt1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
|
|
<stmt1> <rdf:object> <object> .
|
|
<stmt2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
|
|
<stmt2> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
|
|
<stmt2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
|
|
<stmt2> <rdf:object> <object> .
|
|
<stmt1> <property> <foo> .
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>does not entail:</p>
|
|
<pre><stmt2> <property> <foo> .</pre>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0192.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-formal-semantics" name="rdf-formal-semantics">Issue rdf-formal-semantics</a>: The RDF Model and Syntax Rec and RDF Schema
|
|
CR do not provide a formal specification of the semantics of RDF.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Jan/0014.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Fri, 12 Jan 2001 by <a href="mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com">Peter F.
|
|
Patel-Schneider</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The lack of a formal semantics for RDF and RDFS make it difficult
|
|
to construct systems with formal semantics on top of it.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The original message raising this issue lists a number of specific
|
|
questions:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>When are two bags the same?</li>
|
|
<li>Can a container contain itself?</li>
|
|
<li>What is the relationship between a statement and its reification?</li>
|
|
<li>What are the semantics of subClassOf and subPropertyOf?</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The RDFCore <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html">WG
|
|
resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>that the model theory defines formal semantics for RDF and that this
|
|
issue be closed.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0195.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces" name="rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces">Issue rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces</a>: How should a parser process
|
|
namespaces in a literal which is XML markup?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Mar/0022.html">raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 05 Mar 2001 by <a
|
|
href="mailto:skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de">Stefan Kokkelink</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The RDF XML syntax permits Literals which consist of XML markup.
|
|
Is the value of the literal the string of characters as they appear in the
|
|
the source document? If it is, then the association of namespace prefixes to
|
|
namespace URI's may be lost. Alternatively, an RDF processor may be required
|
|
to modify the XML markup as necessary to preserve the association between
|
|
namespace prefixes and namespace URI's.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>For example, How should the following be processed?</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<pre><?xml version="1.0" ?>
|
|
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/HTML"
|
|
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
|
|
xmlns:html="http://NoHTML"
|
|
xmlns:my="http://my">
|
|
<rdf:Description about="John_Smith">
|
|
<my:Name rdf:parseType="Literal">
|
|
<html:h1>
|
|
<b>John</b>
|
|
</html:h1>
|
|
</my:Name>
|
|
</rdf:Description>
|
|
</rdf:RDF></pre>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>CARA creates the following literal respecting the given namespace
|
|
information:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<pre>l('<html:h1 xmlns:html="http://NoHTML">
|
|
<b xmlns="http://www.w3.org/HTML">John</b>
|
|
</html:h1>')</pre>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0235.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>the exact form of the string value corresponding to any given XML
|
|
Literal within RDF/XML is implementation dependent.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>the string value is well-balanced XML</li>
|
|
<li>taking the exclusive canonicalization of both the original XML
|
|
Literal in its containing document, and the string value of the literal
|
|
produce the same character string. (this will be used as the basis for
|
|
test cases)</li>
|
|
<li>the canonicalization above is without comments i.e. CONFORMANCE
|
|
should be tested by canonicalizing without comments; comments may be
|
|
included in the string representation of a literal</li>
|
|
<li>this issue is closed</li>
|
|
<li>to raise a comment on the XQuery/XPath 2.0 data model that it does
|
|
not adequately address the handling of namespace prefixes appearing in
|
|
attribute values.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0233.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-xml-base" name="rdfms-xml-base">Issue rdfms-xml-base</a>: How does xml-base affect RDF.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0097.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 09 May 2001 by <a href="mailto:rdaniel@interwoven.com">Ron Daniel</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The xml-base construct could be useful in defining the base of
|
|
relative URI's in RDF.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The WG decided that it allow xml:base to affect the conversion
|
|
of relative URI refernces to absolute URI references. In particular it <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-25-4">decided</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>RFC 2396 states that self document references, such as rdf:about="", are
|
|
not relative URI's are thus not subject to being converted to an absolute
|
|
URI using xml:base. It was also noted in section 4.2 of RFC 2396 it
|
|
states:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>However, if the URI reference occurs in a context that is always
|
|
intended to result in a new request, as in the case of HTML's FORM
|
|
element, then an empty URI reference represents the base URI of the
|
|
current document and should be replaced by that URI when transformed into
|
|
a request.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>It can be argued that this case should cover RDF's use of URI's.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The WG decided that RDF will convert such references to absolute URI's
|
|
and will take in scope xml:base attributes into account in such
|
|
conversions. Specifically:</p>
|
|
<pre><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
|
|
xmlns:eg="http://example.org/"
|
|
xml:base="http://example.org/dir/file">
|
|
<eg:type rdf:about="" />
|
|
</rdf:RDF>
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>is equivalent to:</p>
|
|
<pre> <http://example.org/dir/file> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://example.org/type> .</pre>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0234.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="mime-types-for-rdf-docs" name="mime-types-for-rdf-docs">Issue mime-types-for-rdf-docs</a>: What mime type should RDF Schema and other
|
|
RDF documents have?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0047.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 by <a href="mailto:lisap@ukoln.ac.uk">Andy Powell</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Concern that the RDFS CR offers no guidance about the mime type
|
|
to be assigned to RDF Schema documents, or to RDF/XML files in general.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Notes: this concern also applies to the RDF Model and Syntax
|
|
specification, and to mixed-namespace XML documents in the general case. See
|
|
also <a
|
|
href="http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/xml-dev-Jan-2000/0611.html">XML
|
|
mime type</a> internet drafts.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0003.html">Issue
|
|
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#mime-types-for-rdf-docs</a>,
|
|
Aaron Swartz (Wed, 02 May 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.13-Internet-Media-Type-for-OWL">I5.13-Internet-Media-Type-for-OWL</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#rdfms-assertion">rdfms-assertion</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 5th April 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0056.html">approved</a>
|
|
initial submission of an internet draft for the registration of an RDF mime
|
|
type and resolved to close this issue.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0019.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-charmod-literals" name="rdf-charmod-literals">Issue rdf-charmod-literals</a>: Does the treatment of literals conform to
|
|
charmod ?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0014.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 01 Oct 2001 by <a href="mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com">Jeremy
|
|
Carroll</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary:Does the treatment of literals conform to charmod ?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 5th April 2002, the RDFCore WG resolved this issue by
|
|
approving test cases white, black 1 and black 2 <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0016.html">submitted</a>
|
|
for consideration. The grey test cases were not approved; instead the WG
|
|
decided to add text to the syntax specification pointing out that literals
|
|
beginning with a combining character may not be serializable in RDF/XML,
|
|
depending on the outcome of CHARMOD, and may cause interoperability
|
|
problems.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0020.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-para196" name="rdfms-para196">Issue rdfms-para196</a>:
|
|
treatment of namespace URIs beginning with the URI named in paragraph
|
|
196 of M+S</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: M&S special treatment of namespaces beginning with
|
|
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax" has been widely misinterpretted as a
|
|
typo for the rdf namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#".</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 30th November 2001, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0651.html">resolved</a>
|
|
to delete this special treatment from the specification..</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics" name="rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics">Issue rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics</a>: Must the value of an rdfs:isDefinedBy
|
|
property be a schema?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0043.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed 21 Feb 2001 by <a href="mailto:aswartz@upclink.com">Aaron Swartz</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Applications cannot rely on the value of an rdfs:isDefinedBy
|
|
property refering to an RDF schema. It is suggested that further sub
|
|
properties of rdfs:isDefinedBy be defined, one of which is contrained to
|
|
refer to a schema and the other is constrained to refer to a
|
|
specification.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 17th June 2002 the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020617-f2f/">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>This property indicates a resource which contains information about the
|
|
subject. Often, this property is used to indicate the source of the subject
|
|
uriref, where its owner specifies its intended meaning. The subject node of
|
|
this property can be any uriref, and the value may be any document or
|
|
resource; the usage is not restricted to a particular form or schema</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0095.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-namespace-change" name="rdf-namespace-change">Issue rdf-namespace-change</a>: Should the rdf: and/or rdfs: namespace URI
|
|
refs be changed</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>Raised 25th Apr 2002</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Some changes have been made to the RDF language (deletion of
|
|
aboutEach*) and definition of terms (rdfs:domain, rdfs:range). This would
|
|
normally call for a change of namespace URI's. If they are not changed, a
|
|
strong case must be made.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 17th June 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020617-f2f/">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>to modify the existing RDF and RDFS namespaces rather than create new
|
|
ones and seek implementor feedback on this decision.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance" name="rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance">Issue rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance</a>: Suggestion of clearer
|
|
discussion of use of subClass and instance relationships simultaneously.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0027.html">raised</a>
|
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 by <a href="mailto:graham@wideman-one.com">Graham
|
|
Wideman</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: It is suggested that the novel use of subclass and instance
|
|
relationships in RDF will be hard for those familiar with object oriented
|
|
programming to understand and that a clearer discussion of the application of
|
|
these relationships, especially when the same resource is both an instance
|
|
and a subClass would be helpful.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 3rd May 2002, the RDFCore WG resolved:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>subClassOf and rdf:type are defined in the RDF Model Theory</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>the RDF Schema spec and RDF Primer provide adequate descriptions of
|
|
these properties</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0097.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-editorial" name="rdfs-editorial">Issue rdfs-editorial</a>: General editorial comments</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>This is list of minor editorial issues.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0096.html">RE:
|
|
Generic Properties and Specific Classes</a>, Jeff Sussna (17 Dec
|
|
1999)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0017.html">Redundant
|
|
and missing info in rdf-schema</a>, Jonas Liljegren (Mon, 24 Apr
|
|
2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0044.html">minor
|
|
comment for CR-rdf-schema-20000327</a>, Susan Lesch (Sun 11 Jun 2000)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0041.html">RDFS
|
|
implicitly included?</a>, Aaron Swartz (Wed, 21 Feb 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Feb/0212.html">RDFS
|
|
typographical issues</a>, Aaron Swartz (Wed, 21 Feb 2001)</li>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0368.html">"translation"
|
|
comment</a>, Christophe Jolif (Thu, 22 Nov 2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 17th June 2002, the RDFCore WG agreed:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>to defer schema document editorial issues to the editor and close
|
|
rdfs-editorial.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdf-charmod-uris" name="rdf-charmod-uris">Issue rdf-charmod-uris</a>: Does the treatment of uri-references conform with
|
|
charmod?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0014.html">Raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 01 Oct 2001 by <a href="mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com">Jeremy
|
|
Carroll</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Does the treatment of uri-references conform with charmod?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 26th April 2002 the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0474.html">approved</a>
|
|
a number of test cases and resolved to close this issue.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-online-char-encoding" name="rdfs-online-char-encoding">Issue rdfs-online-char-encoding</a>: There is problem with the character
|
|
encoding of the online RDF Schema.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000JulSep/0010.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 26 Jul 2000 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: There is a problem with the definition of the character encoding
|
|
of the online <a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema">RDF Schema</a>
|
|
which can cause XML parsers to fail to parse it.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: The RDFCore WG updated the file and <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0406.html">resolved</a>
|
|
to close the issue.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0099.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-container-membership-superProperty" name="rdfs-container-membership-superProperty">Issue rdfs-container-membership-superProperty</a>: There is a need for a
|
|
super property of all the container membership properties.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0263.html">raised</a>
|
|
in RDFCore WG discussions</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: There is a need for a super property of all the container
|
|
membership properties</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On the 9th April 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0406.html">resolved</a>
|
|
that a super property for all the container membership properties would be
|
|
defined.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-constraining-containers" name="rdfs-constraining-containers">Issue rdfs-constraining-containers</a>: Is it possible to constrain the
|
|
members of a container to be of a given type?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Apr/0067.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 20th Apr 2000 by <a href="mailto:francoisleygues@yahoo.com">Francois
|
|
Leygues</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/rdf-dev/1999-07/0015.html">Constraints
|
|
on container elements</a>, Mark Hayes (Sun, 25 Jul 1999)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On the 9th April 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0406.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Expressing such a constraint is beyond the scope of RDFS. Such
|
|
functionality belongs with more powerful ontology languages such as
|
|
daml+oil and owl.</li>
|
|
<li>The WG notes that DAML+OIL can express this constraint as described
|
|
<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0106.html">here</a>.</li>
|
|
<li>The WG closes this issue</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0100.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property" name="rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property">Issue rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property</a>: Clarify whether a Property can have a
|
|
subClassOf property, and if so, what that would mean?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0045.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 by <a href="mailto:mcaklein@cs.vu.nl">Michel Klein</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Can an instance of the Property class have a subClassOf property?
|
|
What does this mean?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 9th April 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0406.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>an instance of the Property class may have an rdfs:subClassOf
|
|
property</li>
|
|
<li>the meaning of such a property is defined by the model theory</li>
|
|
<li>this issue be closed</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0102.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-duplicate-member-props" name="rdfms-duplicate-member-props">Issue rdfms-duplicate-member-props</a>: may a container have duplicate
|
|
containerMembership properties?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0059.html">Raised</a>
|
|
25th Apr 2002 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a> and <a
|
|
href="mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com">Peter F. Patel Schneider</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Model and Syntax says that a container can't have duplicate
|
|
member properties.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Discussion: Model and Syntax, in section 5 states:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>For a single collection resource there may be at most one triple whose
|
|
predicate is any given element of Ord and the elements of Ord must be used
|
|
in sequence starting with RDF:_1</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>This gives rise to the following test case. Is the following legal RDF?</p>
|
|
<pre> <rdf:Bag>
|
|
<rdf:_1 rdf:resource="ex:first" />
|
|
<rdf:_2 rdf:resource="ex:second" />
|
|
<rdf:_1 rdf:resource="ex:other-first" />
|
|
</rdf:Bag></pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 3rd May 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0028.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p><rdf:Bag rdf:about="http://example.org/foo"> <br />
|
|
<rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.org/a" /> <br />
|
|
<rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.org/b" /> <br />
|
|
</rdf:Bag></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>is syntactically legal RDF.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0149.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="faq-html-compliance" name="faq-html-compliance">Issue faq-html-compliance</a>: The suggested way of including RDF meta data
|
|
in HTML is not compliant with HTML 4.01 or XHTML</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000OctDec/0063.html">raised</a>
|
|
Wed 20 Dec 2000 by <a href="mailto:ann@webgeek.com">Ann Navarro</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: The RDF FAQ <a href="http://www.w3.org/RDF/FAQ#How">suggests</a>
|
|
how RDF meta data might be included in HTML. The suggested approach is fails
|
|
HTML 4.01 and XHTML validation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0200.html">RE:
|
|
Authors describing what their URIs mean</a>, Joshua Allen (Sat, 14 Apr
|
|
2001)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On the 17th June 2002, the RDFCore WG resolved this issue.
|
|
This resolution was described in in the RDF/XML Syntax document as:</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>If RDF/XML is embedded inside HTML or XHTML this can add many new
|
|
elements and attributes, many of which will not be in the appropriate DTD.
|
|
This causes validation against the DTD to fail. The obvious solution of
|
|
changing or extending the DTD is not practical for most uses. This problem
|
|
has been analysed extensively by Sean B. Palmer in <a
|
|
href="http://infomesh.net/2002/rdfinhtml/">RDF in HTML: Approaches</a>[<a
|
|
href="http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#ref-rdf-in-xhtml">RDF-IN-XHTML</a>]
|
|
and it concludes that there is no single embedding method that satisfies
|
|
all applications and remains simple.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The recommended approach is to not embed RDF/XML in HTML/XHTML but
|
|
rather to use <link> element in the <head> element of the
|
|
HTML/HTML to point at a separate RDF/XML document. This has been used for
|
|
several years by the <a href="http://www.dublincore.org/">Dublin Core
|
|
Metadata Initiative (DCMI)</a> on its web site.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>To use this technique, the <link> element href should point at the
|
|
URI of the RDF/XML content and the type attribute should be used with the
|
|
value of "application/rdf+xml", the proposed MIME Type for RDF/XML, see
|
|
Section 4 The value of the rel attribute may also be set to indicate the
|
|
relatioship; this is an application dependent value. The DCMI has used and
|
|
recommended rel="meta" when linking in <a
|
|
href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2731.txt">RFC 2731 - Encoding Dublin Core
|
|
Metadata in HTML[RFC-2731]</a> however rel="alternative" may also be
|
|
appropriate. See <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links">HTML 4.01 link
|
|
types</a> and <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstraction.html#dt_LinkTypes">XHTML
|
|
Modularization - LinkTypes</a> for further information.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0151.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfms-seq-representation" name="rdfms-seq-representation">Issue rdfms-seq-representation</a>: The ordinal property representation of
|
|
containers does not support recursive processing of containers in languages
|
|
such as Prolog.</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Feb/0219.html">raised</a>
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2001 by <a href="mailto:connolly@w3.org">Dan Connolly</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: RDF containers, such as sequences are represented using ordinal
|
|
properties of the form rdf:_n. Sequences represented in this way cannot be
|
|
sorted recursively in languages such as Prolog. This has led to the
|
|
definition of the DAML+OIL list representation which can be easily processed
|
|
recursively.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>see also: <a
|
|
href="#rdf-containers-otherapproaches">rdf-containers-otherapproaches</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 31st May 2002, the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0159.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Approve Jos's <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0103.html">test
|
|
case</a> as the basis for resolving this issue</li>
|
|
<li>add the new names to the rdf namespace</li>
|
|
<li>use parseType="Collection"</li>
|
|
<li>typed nodes are permitted as collection members</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0150.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes" name="rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes">Issue
|
|
rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes: A suggestion that the RDF Schema Spec might
|
|
usefully use XML Schema datatypes in examples and/or in some formal
|
|
specification of the mapping of these datatypes into the RDF model.</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0025.html">raised</a>
|
|
Mon, 1st May 2000 by <a href="mailto:DLipkin@Saba.com">Daniel Liplin</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Further Discussion:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-ex.daml">DAML example
|
|
ontology</a> - uses XML Schema datatypes with RDF.
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Resolution: On 11 Oct 2002 the RDFCore WG <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0131.html">resolved</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Currently: closed (<a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0508.html">response</a>)</p>
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|
<p>The resolution of <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html">msg
|
|
0098</a> with all options, and <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0111.html">fix
|
|
from GK</a>.</p>
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|
|
|
<p><a href="#Objections">Objections</a></p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Aaron Swartz <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0137.html">objects</a>
|
|
to the datatypes design</li>
|
|
<li>Mike Dean <a
|
|
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0173.html">objects</a>
|
|
to the datatypes design</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p> The WG expended considerable time and energy trying to find a
|
|
consensus datatyping solution. The problem is that there are
|
|
ultimately irreconcilable requirements:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Some folks desire that given two triples with the equal plain
|
|
literal values, one can conclude that the values represented by
|
|
those plain literals are equal, i.e.
|
|
<pre>
|
|
_:a eg:prop1 "10" .
|
|
_:b eg:prop2 "10" .
|
|
|
|
entails
|
|
|
|
_:a eg:prop1 _:l .
|
|
_:b eg:prop2 _:l .
|
|
</pre>
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Others desire to be able to modify the value denoted by a
|
|
literal using <code>rdfs:range</code>, e.g.:
|
|
<pre>
|
|
_:a eg:prop1 "10" .
|
|
eg:prop1 rdfs:range xsd:decimal .
|
|
|
|
entails
|
|
|
|
_:a eg:prop1 "10"^^xsd:decimal .
|
|
</pre>
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>To keep the model theory tractable, the semantics must be
|
|
monotonic. This is inconsistent with the above two requirements in
|
|
that given the first:
|
|
|
|
<pre>
|
|
_:a eg:prop1 "10" .
|
|
_:b eg:prop2 "10" .
|
|
|
|
entails
|
|
|
|
_:a eg:prop1 _:l .
|
|
_:b eg:prop2 _:l .
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<p>But adding:</p>
|
|
<pre>
|
|
eg:prop1 rdfs:range xsd:decimal .
|
|
eg:prop2 rdfs:range xsd:string .
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<p> to the premises, invalidates this entailment and is thus
|
|
non-monotonic.</p>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>After great effort to find a solution acceptable to all parties,
|
|
none was found, but the WG was able to build strong support for the
|
|
solution it proposes.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Owl ontology languages designed by the WebOnt WG has
|
|
successfully integrated the proposed datatyping solution into its
|
|
design and now relies apon it. The proposed design has been
|
|
successfully implemented, for example in Jena and Euler. In the last
|
|
call comment process only one <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#jsr188-01">comment</a>
|
|
relates to this datatype issue. The WG interprets this as evidence
|
|
that the proposed solution is broadly acceptable to the
|
|
community. Given the intensive effort already expended on this
|
|
problem, the WG suggests that a new solution attracting greater
|
|
support is unlikely to emerge.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p> On these grounds the WG asks the director to support the decision
|
|
of the WG despite outstanding dissent.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Obsoleted References</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a id="summary-changes1" name="summary-changes1">
|
|
<span><a id="attention-developers" name="attention-developers">
|
|
<span><a id="decisions" name="decisions">Attention Developers</a></span></a></span></a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>This section had become out of date and has been obsoleted.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Recent Changes (CVS comments log)</h2>
|
|
<pre>----
|
|
$Log: Overview.html,v $
|
|
Revision 1.227 2005/12/15 14:59:50 connolly
|
|
fixed markup bugs; missing tags and punctuation
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.226 2004/01/05 11:42:02 bmcbride
|
|
Updated mime-types-... to refer to rdfms assertion and to WEBONT issue.
|
|
Updated rdfms-assertion to refer to tag issue and sw meaning forum discussion
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.225 2003/11/13 17:36:37 bmcbride
|
|
fixed type
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.217 2003/11/12 22:58:21 connolly
|
|
elaborated rationale for literal structure decision
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.216 2003/11/11 19:59:19 bmcbride
|
|
noted withdrawl of pfps objection on the completeness of the closure rules.
|
|
added section on objections at request to advance to PR
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.215 2003/11/06 18:15:03 bmcbride
|
|
added seeAlso to 2nd last call comments
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.212 2003/10/30 15:53:25 bmcbride
|
|
Added to #rdfs-lang-vocab that consideration should also be given to
|
|
representing language information about literals in the triple structure.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.211 2003/10/10 11:03:48 bmcbride
|
|
removed commnent in the status section about internal broken links -
|
|
they all appear to be fixed now.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.206 2003/10/09 14:01:34 bmcbride
|
|
fixed validation errors
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.204 2003/10/09 13:10:15 bmcbride
|
|
fixed some broken anchors
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.202 2003/10/08 11:14:41 bmcbride
|
|
Fixed missing fragment anchors
|
|
Add rdfms-syntax-incomplete to list of postponed issues.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.201 2003/10/07 14:43:23 bmcbride
|
|
Removed pfps objection on NFC per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0025.html
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.200 2003/10/06 16:19:42 bmcbride
|
|
add link to xml schema ig in xml schema objection.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.199 2003/10/06 16:17:26 bmcbride
|
|
added XML schema objection.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.198 2003/10/03 11:17:19 bmcbride
|
|
linked rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes to objections from Mike Dean and Aaron Swartz.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.196 2003/10/03 10:36:25 bmcbride
|
|
Created objection section and merged in objections document.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.195 2003/10/03 10:25:26 bmcbride
|
|
Obsoleted the attention developers section.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.194 2003/09/30 13:47:10 bmcbride
|
|
added issue rdf-mapping-lists-and-containers
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.193 2003/07/21 11:11:40 bmcbride
|
|
corrected minor typo
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.191 2003/05/15 17:07:06 bmcbride
|
|
fixed typo
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.190 2003/05/15 17:04:06 bmcbride
|
|
updated resolution of literal-is-xml-structure
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.189 2003/05/08 13:17:36 bmcbride
|
|
Added rdfs-fyi
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.188 2003/05/07 20:25:01 bmcbride
|
|
per his request, added link under rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf to Mark
|
|
Butler's response to the postponement decision.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.187 2003/04/29 18:48:33 bmcbride
|
|
Updated rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf to link also to last call comments
|
|
from the xml schema group.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.186 2003/04/09 09:31:02 bmcbride
|
|
rename rdfs-lang-uris to rdfs-lang-vocab
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.182 2003/03/27 12:06:15 bmcbride
|
|
correcting broken frag id's
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.177 2003/03/27 09:28:38 bmcbride
|
|
fixed some of the broken fragments
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.176 2003/03/13 17:36:15 bmcbride
|
|
Fixed some bad frag id's
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.175 2003/03/13 17:29:18 bmcbride
|
|
Moved rdfms-assertion to postponed
|
|
Moved datatypes to closed
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.174 2002/10/11 16:03:17 connolly
|
|
updated issue syntax-incomplete w.r.t. 26 July decision
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.173 2002/09/28 11:00:45 bmcbride
|
|
refined text of #rdf-embedded
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.171 2002/09/18 07:57:30 bmcbride
|
|
moved containers-other-approaches to correct section
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.170 2002/08/29 17:46:40 bmcbride
|
|
minor editorial correction
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.166 2002/08/19 15:30:00 bmcbride
|
|
Minor editorial corrections
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.162 2002/07/04 13:59:54 bmcbride
|
|
added see also links between rdfms-containers-other-approaches and rdfms-seq-representation
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.161 2002/05/02 19:14:32 bmcbride
|
|
Added new issue:rdfms-duplicate-member-props
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.160 2002/04/30 00:43:58 em
|
|
fixing various issue references to make various rdf core docs pubrules valid
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.159 2002/04/29 17:32:57 bmcbride
|
|
Updated text of rdfms-para196
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.158 2002/04/29 15:46:16 danbri
|
|
added html anchor
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.157 2002/04/29 15:42:29 danbri
|
|
added placeholder for a new issue, rdfms-parag196
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.156 2002/04/25 12:53:44 bmcbride
|
|
corrected bad link
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.154 2002/04/08 14:12:58 bmcbride
|
|
closed rdf-charmod-literals
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.153 2002/04/08 13:09:11 bmcbride
|
|
closed mime-types-for-rdf-docs
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.152 2002/04/04 17:18:32 bmcbride
|
|
added new issue: rdfs-container-membership-superProperty
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.150 2002/03/25 16:57:47 bmcbride
|
|
closed xml-base and literal-namespaces issues
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.149 2002/03/11 15:55:56 bmcbride
|
|
Fixed typo
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.143 2002/02/24 10:39:15 bmcbride
|
|
tidied xhtml
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.142 2002/02/24 09:44:41 bmcbride
|
|
moved literals-as-subjects to postponed list from closed list
|
|
Revision 1.140 2002/02/18 18:01:48 bmcbride
|
|
correct xhtml
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.139 2002/02/18 17:44:09 bmcbride
|
|
closed Issues:
|
|
rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr
|
|
rdf-terminologicus
|
|
rdfms-graph
|
|
rdfms-literals-as-resources
|
|
rdfms-literalsubjects
|
|
rdfms-uri-substructure
|
|
rdfms-boolean-valued-properties
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.138 2002/01/23 08:58:36 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.137 2002/01/14 14:38:06 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.136 2001/12/20 21:36:29 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.127 2001/12/11 16:24:01 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.125 2001/11/23 13:50:05 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.121 2001/11/20 19:40:39 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.120 2001/11/19 15:38:45 bmcbride
|
|
bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.119 2001/11/18 15:58:47 bmcbride
|
|
bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.116 2001/11/12 16:23:39 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.115 2001/11/07 22:01:05 bmcbride
|
|
bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.114 2001/11/05 16:35:41 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.110 2001/11/01 15:18:58 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.101 2001/10/16 19:23:36 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.99 2001/10/11 11:58:40 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.98 2001/10/10 15:31:46 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.92 2001/09/11 20:34:23 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.89 2001/09/10 10:42:18 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.88 2001/09/03 17:13:21 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.87 2001/08/30 12:06:23 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.85 2001/08/29 17:55:54 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.84 2001/08/28 14:01:23 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.80 2001/08/21 14:24:33 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.77 2001/08/20 18:54:37 barstow
|
|
Added names/tags for the Table of Contents and Attention Developers
|
|
sections so they can be addressed.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.76 2001/08/16 14:20:35 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.75 2001/08/13 13:33:03 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.74 2001/08/06 12:12:50 barstow
|
|
Fixed typo: the issue is "id-with-dr", not "id-in-dr".
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.73 2001/07/27 17:07:21 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.72 2001/07/16 16:26:53 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.69 2001/07/05 16:37:51 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.68 2001/07/02 12:42:30 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.66 2001/06/27 16:09:09 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.65 2001/06/25 12:47:03 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.63 2001/06/22 07:08:31 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.60 2001/06/20 14:34:54 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.59 2001/06/11 16:26:49 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.58 2001/06/11 16:24:00 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.57 2001/06/08 10:54:48 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.54 2001/06/07 12:37:29 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.51 2001/06/05 16:24:05 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.50 2001/06/01 09:46:54 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.49 2001/05/31 21:13:21 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.42 2001/05/03 02:04:53 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.41 2001/04/27 09:09:51 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.40 2001/04/26 21:55:05 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.39 2001/04/24 16:16:57 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.38 2001/04/23 11:30:37 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.37 2001/04/18 17:13:11 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.36 2001/04/16 16:18:55 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.28 2001/04/13 11:42:02 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.26 2001/03/20 11:23:36 bmcbride
|
|
(bmcbride) Changed through Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.21 2001/02/09 12:34:42 danbri
|
|
tidy'd xhtml</pre>
|
|
<pre>Revision 1.20 2001/02/09 12:31:36 danbri</pre>
|
|
<pre>checking in changes by brian</pre>
|
|
<pre>Revision 1.19 2000/10/12 22:27:47 danbri
|
|
xhtml valid again.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.18 2000/10/12 22:26:01 danbri
|
|
fixed ToC
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.17 2000/10/12 22:24:01 danbri
|
|
added rdf:resource writeup (from Lee Jonas)
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.16 2000/10/12 22:12:56 danbri
|
|
fixed up ToC
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.15 2000/10/12 22:10:40 danbri
|
|
added more issues, link to brian's excellent overview of discussions etc
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.14 2000/10/12 21:19:58 danbri
|
|
linking new container issues from table of contents
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.13 2000/10/12 21:15:07 danbri
|
|
escaped quoted XML markup
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.12 2000/10/12 21:13:30 danbri
|
|
added a couple of container-related issues from Graham Klyne, 2000-09-06 msg.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.11 2000/10/12 20:48:32 danbri
|
|
created natural language labels for each issue, replacing the original meaningless
|
|
numeric identifiers (though leaving anchor targets in place to preserve old links).
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.10 2000/10/12 17:43:09 danbri
|
|
added a little clarification text under 'Context'.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.9 2000/10/12 17:39:54 danbri
|
|
added logo
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.8 2000/09/06 19:00:31 danbri
|
|
added rdfms006, statements repeated with same p/s/o issue.
|
|
|
|
still todo: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0036.html
|
|
|
|
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0037.html
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.7 2000/09/06 18:07:39 danbri
|
|
Added more detail to 'semantics of #' rdf issue.
|
|
|
|
Revision 1.6 2000/09/05 12:58:03 danbri
|
|
Added link to Stefan's RDF proposed updates page, and CVS changes log.</pre>
|
|
<hr />
|
|
<address>
|
|
Maintained by: Brian McBride <<a
|
|
href="mailto:brian_mcbride@hp.com">brian_mcbride@hp.com</a>>, RDFCore WG
|
|
co-chair<br />
|
|
Initiated and formerly maintained by: Dan Brickley <<a
|
|
href="mailto:danbri@w3.org">danbri@w3.org</a>>, RDF Interest Group
|
|
Chair<br />
|
|
Last updated: $Id: Overview.html,v 1.227 2005/12/15 14:59:50 connolly Exp $
|
|
</address>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|