Last call comments from the I18N WG on RDF WDs from Dan Connolly on 2003-11-12 (www-rdf-comments@w3.org from October to December 2003) (original) (raw)

Dear RDF WG,

Here are the last call comments from the I18N WG on the RDF drafts. This is not necessarily by draft, but by feature.

Thanks for the careful review. The RDF Core Working Group noted several of these points in its 7 Nov teleconference. (The others are left for the editors to address).

In brief: In one case, we decided to add an issue and postpone it. In other cases, we found that the issues here have been considered in making earlier decisions, and we did not reopen them. While I don't expect this addresses your comments to your satisfaction, perhaps the time for exploring design alternatives for this version of RDF has come to an end. We look forward to discussing this with you and The Director.

Some details follow...

Yes, we have explored designs along these lines but decided (9 May 2003) on a different design.

We have updated our issues list to elaborate on the various alternatives and the reasons we didn't choose designs like this. http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure 1.217 2003/11/12 22:58:21

Yes, we were aware of these questions when we made the 9 May decision.

The working group decided that this issue a new issue, but to postpone it:

[[[ add a new issue to the issue list: "relationship between XMLLiterals and plain literals," and postpone it.

Rationale:

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.

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.

Hence, RDF applciations which require this equivalence may operate in such a mode, and so this issue is not a show stopper. ]] -- Minutes, 2003-11-07 (in progress) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/0063.html

I'm leaving that point for the primer editor(s) to address.

Yes, we are aware that "The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various awkward features." -- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches

We resolved, 15th February 2002, to postpone full treatment of that issue to a future working group. Perhaps that's sufficiently responsive to your comment at this point?

I'm leaving that point for the primer editor(s) to address.

I'm leaving that for the primer or concepts editor(s) to address.

-- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:31:00 UTC