discontinued / server · Files

index.html 165 KB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 2678 2679 2680 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723 2724 2725 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 2791 2792 2793 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826 2827 2828 2829 2830 2831 2832 2833 2834 2835 2836 2837 2838 2839 2840 2841 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2850 2851 2852 2853 2854 2855 2856 2857 2858 2859 2860 2861 2862 2863 2864 2865 2866 2867 2868 2869 2870 2871 2872 2873 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 2886 2887 2888 2889 2890 2891 2892 2893 2894 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 2904 2905 2906 2907 2908 2909 2910 2911 2912 2913 2914 2915 2916 2917 2918 2919 2920 2921 2922 2923 2924 2925 2926 2927 2928 2929 2930 2931 2932 2933 2934 2935 2936 2937 2938 2939 2940 2941 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959 2960 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968 2969 2970 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 2981 2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 2990 2991 2992 2993 2994 2995 2996 2997 2998 2999 3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 3071 3072 3073 3074 3075 3076 3077 3078 3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086 3087 3088 3089 3090 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 3105 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 3128 3129 3130 3131 3132 3133 3134 3135 3136 3137 3138 3139 3140 3141 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151 3152 3153 3154 3155 3156 3157 3158 3159 3160 3161 3162 3163 3164 3165 3166 3167 3168 3169 3170 3171 3172 3173 3174 3175 3176 3177 3178 3179 3180 3181 3182 3183 3184 3185 3186 3187 3188 3189 3190 3191 3192 3193 3194 3195 3196 3197 3198 3199 3200 3201 3202 3203 3204 3205 3206 3207 3208 3209 3210 3211 3212 3213 3214 3215 3216 3217 3218 3219 3220 3221 3222 3223 3224 3225 3226 3227 3228 3229 3230 3231 3232 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3238 3239 3240 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 3266 3267 3268 3269 3270 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 3280 3281 3282 3283 3284 3285 3286 3287 3288 3289 3290 3291 3292 3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 3300 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308 3309 3310 3311 3312 3313 3314 3315 3316 3317 3318 3319 3320 3321 3322 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3328 3329 3330 3331 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 3337 3338 3339 3340 3341 3342 3343 3344 3345 3346 3347 3348 3349 3350 3351 3352 3353 3354 3355 3356 3357 3358 3359 3360 3361 3362 3363 3364 3365 3366 3367 3368 3369 3370 3371 3372 3373 3374 3375 3376 3377 3378 3379 3380 3381 3382 3383 3384 3385 3386 3387 3388 3389 3390 3391 3392 3393 3394 3395 3396 3397 3398 3399 3400 3401 3402 3403 3404 3405 3406 3407 3408 3409 3410 3411 3412 3413 3414 3415 3416 3417 3418 3419 3420 3421 3422 3423 3424 3425 3426 3427 3428 3429 3430 3431 3432 3433 3434 3435 3436 3437 3438 3439 3440 3441 3442 3443 3444 3445 3446 3447 3448 3449 3450 3451 3452 3453 3454 3455 3456 3457 3458 3459 3460 3461 3462 3463 3464 3465 3466 3467 3468 3469 3470 3471 3472 3473 3474 3475 3476 3477 3478 3479 3480 3481 3482 3483 3484 3485 3486 3487 3488 3489 3490 3491 3492 3493 3494 3495 3496 3497 3498 3499 3500 3501 3502 3503 3504 3505 3506 3507 3508 3509 3510 3511 3512 3513 3514 3515 3516 3517 3518 3519 3520 3521 3522 3523 3524 3525 3526 3527 3528 3529 3530 3531 3532 3533 3534 3535 3536 3537 3538 3539 3540 3541 3542 3543 3544 3545 3546 3547 3548 3549 3550 3551 3552 3553 3554 3555 3556 3557 3558 3559 3560 3561 3562 3563 3564 3565 3566 3567 3568 3569 3570 3571 3572 3573 3574 3575 3576 3577 3578 3579 3580 3581 3582 3583 3584 3585 3586 3587 3588 3589 3590 3591 3592 3593 3594 3595 3596 3597 3598 3599 3600 3601 3602 3603 3604 3605 3606 3607 3608 3609 3610 3611 3612 3613 3614 3615 3616 3617 3618 3619 3620 3621 3622 3623 3624 3625 3626 3627 3628 3629 3630 3631 3632 3633 3634 3635 3636 3637 3638 3639 3640 3641 3642 3643 3644 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3653 3654 3655 3656 3657 3658 3659 3660 3661 3662 3663 3664 3665 3666 3667 3668 3669 3670 3671 3672 3673 3674 3675 3676 3677 3678 3679 3680 3681 3682 3683 3684 3685 3686 3687 3688 3689 3690 3691 3692 3693 3694 3695 3696 3697 3698 3699 3700 3701 3702 3703 3704 3705 3706 3707 3708 3709 3710 3711 3712 3713 3714 3715 3716 3717 3718 3719 3720 3721 3722 3723 3724 3725 3726 3727 3728 3729 3730 3731 3732 3733 3734 3735 3736 3737 3738 3739 3740 3741 3742 3743 3744 3745 3746 3747 3748 3749 3750 3751 3752 3753 3754 3755 3756 3757 3758 3759 3760 3761 3762 3763 3764 3765 3766 3767 3768 3769 3770 3771 3772 3773 3774 3775 3776 3777 3778 3779 3780 3781 3782 3783 3784 3785 3786 3787 3788 3789 3790 3791 3792 3793 3794 3795 3796 3797 3798 3799 3800 3801 3802 3803 3804 3805 3806 3807 3808 3809 3810 3811 3812 3813 3814 3815 3816 3817 3818 3819 3820 3821 3822 3823 3824 3825 3826 3827 3828 3829 3830 3831 3832 3833 3834 3835 3836 3837 3838 3839 3840 3841 3842 3843 3844 3845 3846 3847 3848 3849 3850 3851 3852 3853 3854 3855 3856 3857 3858 3859 3860 3861 3862 3863 3864 3865 3866 3867 3868 3869 3870 3871 3872 3873 3874 3875 3876 3877 3878 3879 3880 3881 3882 3883 3884 3885 3886 3887 3888 3889 3890 3891 3892 3893 3894 3895 3896 3897 3898 3899 3900 3901 3902 3903 3904 3905 3906 3907 3908 3909 3910 3911 3912 3913 3914 3915 3916 3917 3918 3919 3920 3921 3922 3923 3924 3925 3926 3927 3928 3929 3930 3931 3932 3933 3934 3935 3936 3937 3938 3939 3940 3941 3942 3943 3944 3945 3946 3947 3948 3949 3950 3951 3952 3953 3954 3955 3956 3957 3958 3959 3960 3961 3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 3967 3968 3969 3970 3971 3972 3973 3974 3975 3976 3977 3978 3979 3980 3981 3982 3983 3984 3985 3986 3987 3988 3989 3990 3991 3992 3993 3994 3995 3996 3997 3998 3999 4000 4001 4002 4003 4004 4005 4006 4007 4008 4009 4010 4011 4012 4013 4014 4015 4016 4017 4018 4019 4020 4021 4022 4023 4024 4025 4026 4027 4028 4029 4030 4031 4032 4033 4034 4035 4036 4037 4038 4039 4040 4041 4042 4043 4044 4045 4046 4047 4048 4049 4050 4051 4052 4053 4054 4055 4056 4057 4058 4059 4060 4061 4062 4063 4064 4065 4066 4067 4068 4069 4070 4071 4072 4073 4074 4075 4076 4077 4078 4079 4080 4081 4082 4083 4084 4085 4086 4087 4088 4089 4090 4091 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096 4097 4098 4099 4100 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4106 4107 4108 4109 4110 4111 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 4123 4124 4125 
<?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. &quot;foo&quot; should denote the
 same thing as the  plain literal &quot;foo&quot;.</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 &lt;http://random.ioctl.org/#p1&gt; _:a2 .
        _:a2 &lt;http://random.ioctl.org/#p2&gt; _: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} =&gt; { ?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. &quot;foo&quot; , should denote
 the same thing as the plain literal. &quot;foo&quot;.</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 &amp; 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&amp;pg=q&amp;what=web&amp;filter=lists&amp;fmt=.&amp;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>&lt;rdf:Bag&gt;
  &lt;rdf:li&gt;&lt;/rdf:li&gt;
&lt;/rdf:Bag&gt;</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>&lt;rdf:Description&gt; 
  &lt;foo:bar /&gt;
&lt;/rdf:Description&gt;</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>&lt;rdf:Bag&gt;
  &lt;rdf:_2&gt;2&lt;/rdf:_2&gt;
  &lt;rdf::_4&gt;4&lt;/rdf:_4&gt;
&lt;/rdf:Bag&gt;</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&amp;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 &lt;li&gt;
elements into &lt;_1&gt;, &lt;_2&gt;, 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&amp;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&amp;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>&lt;?xml version="1.0"?&gt;
&lt;RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
     xmlns:DC="http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core/"&gt;
 &lt;Bag ID="pages"&gt;
   &lt;li resource="http://foo.org/foo.html" /&gt;
   &lt;li resource="http://bar.org/bar.html" /&gt;
 &lt;/Bag&gt;
 &lt;Description about="URL1"&gt;
   &lt;DC:Prop&gt;
     &lt;Description aboutEach="#pages"&gt;
       &lt;DC:Creator&gt;Ora Lassila&lt;/DC:Creator&gt;
     &lt;/Description&gt;
   &lt;/DC:Prop&gt;
  &lt;/Description&gt;
&lt;/RDF&gt;</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--&gt;[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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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 &lt;Description
ID="bar"&gt; and &lt;Description about="#bar"&gt;? 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:

&lt;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#"&gt;

  &lt;r:Description r:about="#books"
     xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"&gt;
    &lt;r:type r:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag" /&gt;
    &lt;r:_1 r:resource="#book1" /&gt;
    &lt;ex:member2 r:resource="#book2" /&gt;
    &lt;r:_3 r:resource="#book3" /&gt;
  &lt;/r:Description&gt;

  &lt;rdf:Description rdf:aboutEach="#books"&gt;
    &lt;dc:rights xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"&gt;all
    mine!&lt;/dc:rights&gt;
  &lt;/rdf:Description&gt;

  &lt;rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example/vocab#member2"&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:subPropertyOf 
        rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_2"/&gt;
  &lt;/rdf:Description&gt;
&lt;/rdf:RDF&gt;</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&amp;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>&lt;rdf:Bag rdf:ID='bag'/&gt;
  &lt;rdf:li rdf:resource='http://foo/bag1'/&gt;
  &lt;rdf:li rdf:resource='http://foo/bag2'/&gt;
&lt;/rdf:Bag&gt;
&lt;rdf:Description rdf:aboutEach='#bag'&gt;
  &lt;foo:bar rdf:ID='stmtId'&gt;...&lt;/foo:bar&gt;
&lt;/rdf:Description&gt;</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>&lt;foo&gt; &lt;chocolateLover&gt; &lt;true&gt; .<br />
  &lt;foo&gt; &lt;rdf:chocolateHater&gt; &lt;true&gt; .</p>

  <p>can be represented by</p>

  <p>&lt;foo&gt; &lt;rdf:type&gt; &lt;ChocolateLover&gt; .<br />
  &lt;foo&gt; &lt;rdf:type&gt; &lt;ChocolateHater&gt; .</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>&lt;rdf:Description&gt;
  &lt;foo:bar rdf:ID="foobar" rdf:resource="http://foobar"/&gt;
&lt;/rdf:Description&gt;</pre>
</blockquote>

<p>is not legal. This can instead be written as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <pre>&lt;rdf:Description&gt;
  &lt;foo:bar rdf:ID="foobar"&gt;
    &lt;rdf:Description rdf:resource="http://foobar"/&gt;
  &lt;/foo:bar&gt;
&lt;/rdf:Description&gt;</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>  &lt;rdf:Description&gt;
   &lt;foo:bar rdf:ID="foo" rdf:resource="bar"/&gt;
  &lt;/rdf:Description&gt; </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>  &lt;rdf:Description about="a" bagID="bag1"&gt;
    &lt;some:prop rdf:ID="st1"&gt;
      &lt;rdf:Description about="b" bagID="bag2"&gt;
        &lt;some:otherProp rdf:ID="st2"&gt;
          A literal
        &lt;/some:otherProp&gt;
      &lt;/rdf:Description&gt;
    &lt;/some:prop&gt;
  &lt;/rdf:Description&gt;</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>   &lt;rdf:Description about="a" bagID="bag1"&gt;
     &lt;some:prop rdf:ID="st1"&gt;
       &lt;rdf:Description about="b" bagID="bag2"&gt;
         &lt;some:otherProp rdf:ID="st2"&gt;A literal&lt;/some:otherProp&gt;
       &lt;/rdf:Description&gt;
     &lt;/some:prop&gt; 
   &lt;/rdf:Description&gt; </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>  &lt;rdf:Description&gt; 
    &lt;rdf:foo&gt;foo&lt;/rdf:foo&gt;
   &lt;/rdf:Description&gt; </pre>

<p>is equivalent to:</p>
<pre> _:a &lt;rdf:foo&gt; "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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;S would be replaced], the editorial issues with M&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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 &lt;foo&gt;bar&lt;/foo&gt; is not '&lt;'.</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>&lt;stmt1&gt; &lt;rdf:type&gt; &lt;rdf:Statement&gt; .
&lt;stmt1&gt; &lt;rdf:subject&gt; &lt;subject&gt; .
&lt;stmt1&gt; &lt;rdf:predicate&gt; &lt;predicate&gt; .
&lt;stmt1&gt; &lt;rdf:object&gt; &lt;object&gt; .
&lt;stmt2&gt; &lt;rdf:type&gt; &lt;rdf:Statement&gt; .
&lt;stmt2&gt; &lt;rdf:subject&gt; &lt;subject&gt; .
&lt;stmt2&gt; &lt;rdf:predicate&gt; &lt;predicate&gt; .
&lt;stmt2&gt; &lt;rdf:object&gt; &lt;object&gt; .
&lt;stmt1&gt; &lt;property&gt; &lt;foo&gt; .
  </pre>

  <p>does not entail:</p>
  <pre>&lt;stmt2&gt; &lt;property&gt; &lt;foo&gt; .</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>&lt;?xml version="1.0" ?&gt;
&lt;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"&gt;
   &lt;rdf:Description about="John_Smith"&gt;
    &lt;my:Name rdf:parseType="Literal"&gt;
      &lt;html:h1&gt;
        &lt;b&gt;John&lt;/b&gt;
      &lt;/html:h1&gt;
   &lt;/my:Name&gt;
  &lt;/rdf:Description&gt;
&lt;/rdf:RDF&gt;</pre>
</blockquote>

<p>CARA creates the following literal respecting the given namespace
information:</p>

<blockquote>
  <pre>l('&lt;html:h1 xmlns:html="http://NoHTML"&gt;
     &lt;b xmlns="http://www.w3.org/HTML"&gt;John&lt;/b&gt; 
   &lt;/html:h1&gt;')</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>&lt;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"&gt; 
  &lt;eg:type rdf:about="" /&gt; 
&lt;/rdf:RDF&gt;  
  </pre>

  <p>is equivalent to:</p>
  <pre>  &lt;http://example.org/dir/file&gt; &lt;http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type&gt; &lt;http://example.org/type&gt; .</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&amp;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> &lt;rdf:Bag&gt;
   &lt;rdf:_1 rdf:resource="ex:first" /&gt;
   &lt;rdf:_2 rdf:resource="ex:second" /&gt;
   &lt;rdf:_1 rdf:resource="ex:other-first" /&gt;
 &lt;/rdf:Bag&gt;</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>&lt;rdf:Bag rdf:about="http://example.org/foo"&gt; <br />
  &lt;rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.org/a" /&gt; <br />
  &lt;rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.org/b" /&gt; <br />
  &lt;/rdf:Bag&gt;</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 &lt;link&gt; element in the &lt;head&gt; 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 &lt;link&gt; 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 &lt;<a
  href="mailto:brian_mcbride@hp.com">brian_mcbride@hp.com</a>&gt;, RDFCore WG
  co-chair<br />
  Initiated and formerly maintained by: Dan Brickley &lt;<a
  href="mailto:danbri@w3.org">danbri@w3.org</a>&gt;, RDF Interest Group
  Chair<br />
  Last updated: $Id: Overview.html,v 1.227 2005/12/15 14:59:50 connolly Exp $
</address>
</body>
</html>