RDF Issue Tracking: two issues

• From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
• Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 08:52:06 +0100
• To: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000906084747.00aa4950@pop.dial.pipex.com>

Folks,
I thought I had sent my original message (below) to the list, but 
apparently not...
So, at Dan's suggestion, my comments, preceded by Dan's response.
I'll add a small comment:  While designing APIs is a good way to explore 
issues, I don't think APIs are really the right way to make issues clear -- 
I think good document review and editing is the way there.
#g
--
>Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:11:10 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
>To: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
>cc: danbri@w3.org
>Subject: Re: RDF Issue Tracking: help needed
>
>
>Hi Graham,
>
>Thanks for these; you're right, they're both recurring issues. The
>mime-typed fragment business I consider a Web architecture bug. The
>multiple statements thing I find more intriguing. IMHO people tend to
>conflate 'rdf model' with 'rdf-based web data management system', and say
>that the latter should throw out recurrent triples (and their
>contexts...). Making this distinction more clearly (eg. in terms of
>API: an API to what?) might help defuse that issue.
>
>Fancy resending this message (include my reply above if you like) to
>www-rdf-interest and I'll add to the Issue Tracking page.
>
>Thanks for your help :-)
>
>cheers,
>
>dan
>
>On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> > Dan,
> >
> > I think this is an important activity, as I'm fairly sure there are 
> several
> > issues that have been raised concerning the RDF spec that are not captured
> > in one place.  Two that I recall of the top of my head are:
> >
> > 1.  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?
> >
> > 2.  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.  I'm not wedded to this idea.
> >
> > (Even if these issues have been resolved somewhere, it would be worth
> > collecting the agreed resolutions.  I think they call for revisions to the
> > RDF M&S, if only editorial.)
> >
> > I'll try to post more issues for you as they occur to me.
> >
> > #g
> > --
> >
> >
> > At 09:03 AM 9/5/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> > >RDF IG,
> > >
> > >As you all know, discussion threads on this list tend to revisit old
> > >themes, and we're dealing with a rather complex web of overlapping
> > >problems and puzzles.
> > >
> > >I've finally put up a skeletal RDF Interest Group 'Issue Tracking' page as
> > >an effort towards gathering common issues, strategies and resolution
> > >proposals from the RDF community.
> > >
> > >         https://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/
> > >
> > >This is a rough, simple start and needs more content, polish and (above
> > >all) issue summaries. Rather than sit on it for still longer, I'm 
> pushing this
> > >to the list in the hope of suggestions, help and content.
> > >
> > >So, please have a look at this. Meanwhile, next job: RDF Schema CR 
> summary.
> > >
> > >More on which another time...
> > >
> > >Dan
> > >
> > >--
> > >RDF Interest Group chair
> > >mailto:danbri@w3.org
> >
> > ------------
> > Graham Klyne
> > (GK@ACM.ORG)
> >
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)

Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2000 05:52:18 UTC