# $Id: RDFConceptIssues.n3,v 1.23 2002年11月29日 18:27:33 graham Exp $
#
# RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax document
# Issues list
#
# This is being used as a use-case/testbed to generate an RDF schema
# for document issue tracking. This file will be processed by variations
# of the SemaFor software to generate status reports for general use.
#
# In time, the information should be lodged in a database as a Jena model,
# rather than as a flat file. Meanwhile, flat-file N3 is a user interface
# I can handle...
#
#--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
#
# Copyright (c) 2002, G. KLYNE
# All rights reserved.
#
# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
# are met:
# 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
# documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
# 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
# derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
#
# THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
# IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
# OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
# IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
# INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
# NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
# DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
# THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
# (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
# THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
#
#--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
# $Source: /Users/graham/cvs/cvsweb/ninebynine.org/docs/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues.n3,v $
# $Author: graham $
# $Date: 2002年11月29日 18:27:33 $
# $Id: RDFConceptIssues.n3,v 1.23 2002年11月29日 18:27:33 graham Exp $
#--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
@prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> .
@prefix iss: <http://id.ninebynine.org/wip/2002/docissues#> .
# About this document:
<strong> rdfs:label "RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax - issues" ;
 iss:about <http://www.w3.org/tr/rdf-concepts/> ;
 dc:author "Graham Klyne" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 List of issues and current status for the document
 Resource Description Framework (RDF):
 Concepts and Abstract Data Model
 working draft.
 """ .
# About the target document editors
<#editor-gk>
 foaf:mbox <mailto:gk@ninebynine.org> ;
 foaf:name "Graham Klyne" ;
 foaf:initials "GK" .
<#editor-jjc>
 foaf:mbox <mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com> ;
 foaf:name "Jeremy Carroll" ;
 foaf:initials "JJC" .
# About the RDF Concepts document:
<http://www.w3.org/tr/wd-rdf-concepts/>
 rdf:type iss:Document ;
 iss:name "RDF-Concepts" ;
 rdfs:label "RDF Concepts and Abstract Data Model" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/rdf-concepts/> ;
 iss:editor <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:editor <#editor-jjc> ;
 iss:history # document history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:W3CWorkingDraft ;
 iss:when "2002-08-29" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 First official working draft of document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a data format
 for representing metadata about Web resources, and other
 information.
 This document defines the abstract graph syntax on
 which RDF is based, and which serves to link its XML
 serialization to its formal semantics.
 It also describes some other technical aspects of RDF
 that do not fall under the topics of formal semantics,
 XML serialization syntax or RDF schema and vocabulary
 definitions (which are each covered by a separate
 document in this series).
 These include: discussion of design goals, meaning of
 RDF documents, key concepts, character normalization and
 handling of URI references.
 """ ;
 ### Document issues follow ###
################ Issue 001 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "001-Editorial" ;
 rdfs:label "Editorial comments" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:patrick.stickler@nokia.com> ;
 foaf:name "Patrick Stickler" ;
 foaf:initials "PatS" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-08-08" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002aug/0074.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-08-08" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002aug/0074.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Comments raised to WG prior to initial WD publication,
 but not folded in to the document.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Editorial fixes clearly in GK's text.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-26" ;
 #iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Item 1: added comment in section 1.
 <br/>
 Item 2: instead: "RDF is a member of the family of languages that use XML, ..."
 <br/>
 Item 3: instead: "Support use of XML schema datatypes"
 <br/>
 Item 4: I think "not covered" says it all here. In connection with
 the first part of the sentence I think its perfectly strong enough.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Changes folded into publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-introduction> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-overview> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#xtocid4808> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#xtocid48023> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
1. In section 1, it says "RDF is based on a graph syntax, which is
typically serialized using XML.". I think it would be good to
make clear here that the RDF graph syntax is not equivalent
to the XML infoset, and that the XML serialization really
constitutes a "recipe" for constructing the conceptual graph.
Alot of folks seem to get confused when the RDF graph doesn't
mirror the RDF/XML or visa versa, so making this clear up front
may be helpful.
2. In section 2, it says "RDF builds on XML". I don't think
this is accurate. RDF uses XML to serialize its graph structures,
but is not an extension of XML, but only includes an application
of XML.
3. In 2.2, a stated design goal is "Use XML schema datatypes". I
think it would be better to say "Support the use of XML Schema
datatypes". Otherwise, it may be taken to imply that XML Schema
datatypes are integrated with or into RDF directly, which they
are not (and IMO should not be). Ahh, yes, I see that this is
clearer in the discussion of this bullet item, but still, perhaps
the bullet item could be clearer.
4. In 2.4.3, perhaps "are not covered by this recommendation."
could be expressed more strongly as "are not licensed by this
recommendation for interchange of RDF graphs".
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 002 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "002-InconsistentAssertions" ;
 rdfs:label "Inconsistent assertions incompatible with MT" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com> ;
 foaf:name "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" ;
 foaf:initials "PFPS" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-02" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0161.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-02" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0161.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The statements about inconsistent assertions read as being
 incompatible with the Model Theory document.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Editorial fixes clearly in GK's text.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] I think the text needs to be clearer about logical
 inconsistency in RDF assertions (not possible), and
 inconsistency of such assertions with real-world users
 expectations (possible).
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-26" ;
 #iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Revised wording:
 "A consequence of this is that RDF cannot prevent anyone from 
 making assertions that are nonsensical or inconsistent with 
 the world as people see it, and applications that build upon 
 RDF must find ways to deal with incomplete and conflicting 
 sources of information."
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Comments folded in to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#xtocid48014> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
I just took a quick look at the new WD.
On thing that jumped out at me was:
 Section 2.2.6 ... RDF cannot prevent anyone from making ... inconsistent
 assertions, and applications that build upon RDF must find
 ways to deal with conflicting sources of information.
Contrast this with the RDF MT document:
 Section 2 ... This means that there is no such thing as an inconsistency
 or a contradiction in RDF.
I'm pretty sure that both documents cannot be correct.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 003 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "003-ModelTheory" ;
 rdfs:label "Problems with introduction to model theory" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:jerome.euzenat@inrialpes.fr> ;
 foaf:name "Jerome Euzenat" ;
 foaf:initials "JE" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-04" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0164.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-04" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0164.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Concerns raised with the introduction to concepts of formal
 semantics.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Editorial fixes clearly in GK's text.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-09-05" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0170.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Pat Hayes' response to this comment.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-09-06" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0171.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Jerome Euzenat response to Pat Hayes.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-26" ;
 #iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Revisions, based in part on Pat Hayes' response (thanks Pat!):
 <br/>
 1. Replace "certain meanings..." with "formal meanings...".
 <br/>
 2. Replace "'world'" with "set of possible 'worlds'", so that the sentence
 reads: "Model-theoretic semantics assumes that a language refers to a set of 
 possible 'worlds', ..."
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-27" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The wording has been refined through further exchanges with Pat Hayes.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Comments folded in to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-formal> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
about the "Resource Description Framework (RDF):Concepts and
Abstract Data Model" document, I have comments about one minor part
(viz. 2.3.1 Formal semantics):
&#124; To serve this purpose, certain meanings of RDF statements must
&#124; be defined in a very precise manner
why "certain" and which ones?>Model-theoretic semantics assumes that a language refers to a>'world', and describes the minimal conditions that such world must>satisfy in order to assign an appropriate meaning for every>expression in the language.
"a language refers to a 'world'" is at least misleading:
- this is rather the assertions in the language which refer to the world.
- the word "a" here could lead the reader to equate one language or
one set of assertion to one world, though the purpose of model theory
is not to tie the assertion to one world but rather to consider all
the possible worlds.
I offer the replacement:
"Model-theoric semantics defines the meaning of expressions in the
language through a mapping (called interpretation) from a language to
worlds. A set of assertions in the language, thus induce constraints
on the acceptable interpretation (called model) of these assertions.
The meaning of an expression is defined with regard to its
interpretation in all the models."
I am sure that this is too technical, maybe reducing this part and
refering to RDF-MT document is an easier alternative.> A particular world is called an interpretation, so that model>theory might be better called 'interpretation theory'.
Not accurate: an interpretation is a mapping from the language to the
world. Indeed there can be many interpretations mapping to the same
world.
A model of a set of assertions is an interpretation that satifies all
the assertions in the set (i.e., which maps it to the element of a
distinguished subset of the world for being very general, very often
the set { true }). So model theory is well named.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 004 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "004-MultiGraph" ;
 rdfs:label "Multi graph is not adequately explained" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:jerome.euzenat@inrialpes.fr> ;
 foaf:name "Jerome Euzenat" ;
 foaf:initials "JE" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-04" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0164.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "20021118" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0125.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-04" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0164.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Aspects of multi graph not fully explained.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Editorial fixes clearly in JJC's text.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0125.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Citation is Jeremy's response
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#xtocid103647> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
Also in 3.5 RDF graph, in the Note:
- RDF Graphs are "node-labeled, edge-labeled directed multi-graphs"
(with no disjointness constraints between node-labels and
edge-labels): the multi- aspect is not in the note (i.e., that there
can be several arcs between the two same nodes -- maybe with
different labels).
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 005 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "005-Editorial-Concepts" ;
 rdfs:label "Editorial comments about concept sections" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:massimo@w3.org> ;
 foaf:name "Massimo Marchiori" ;
 foaf:initials "MM" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-04" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0165.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-04" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0165.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Editorial comments concerning concepts sections.
 Also expresses concern that some of the material tackled is
 too difficult, cannot be formalized, and does not belong
 in an RDF specification.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Concerns clearly with GK's text.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments> ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Note that most of the difficult issues raised here are
 in response to specific comments raised against the
 previous RDF specifications. See the issues cited.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-26" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material from earlier sections may be moved to other places when the
 document set is reviewed as a whole. Until then, I plan to leave it
 here so that the material is not lost.
 <p/>
 Concerning the discussion of fragment, this was included in response
 to a specific issue raised against the document. I've been living with
 this explanation for a while now, and feel that the basic ideas are
 consistent with RDF usage and with wider URI use in the web.
 <p/>
 (No document changes at this time.)
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 No change to the concept sections at this time.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-introduction> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-overview> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#xtocid103660> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
First, thanks much for setting this draft out, I think it clears the way to a
finally unambiguous definition of the data model, and solves my previous rants
on the data model part in the MT
(cf. from
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0107.html :
+ issue of literal information in the semantics
+ "no free meal" for blank nodes (and related instances problem))
provided of course the MT is updated accordingly.
Ideally, the MT might just refer to this draft for any ADM definition :)
Even, it touches the other big issue regarding the Test case drafts, namely
the previosuly erroneous/fuzzy notion of graph isomorphism, cf.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0081.html
and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0083.html
(incidentally, I think we didn't get a final resolution about the conformance issue
there yet; oh well ;).
Back to the doc, some comments, plus a couple of discussion points (XML literals, fragid's).
*** Sections 1 and 2:> [[[NOTE: it is anticipated that some of the material in this document may be> moved to other documents as part of the document review process.]]]
Yes, this is definitely an option: I found the doc very well written, but,
so to say, like it's putting together things of a very different nature: ADM
formal definition, general principles about the semantics, etc.
Mostly, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 don't seem to belong to the next part, the ADM
definition. I'll let you figure out how to deal with this. An option might be
to move 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 to the Primer, for example. Anyway, just a matter
of personal reading tastes.
[...]
*** Section 4.2
Do we really need this? This whole part is made out of linguistic statements
(because, admittedly, the issue is hairy), but so it should be either formalized
(and then, likely put in the MT), or taken out.
Restated: suppose the whole section is striken out: what would change?
I'd suggest RDF stays out of the very hairy fragid's issue for the time being.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 006 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "006-Editorial-Syntax" ;
 rdfs:label "Editorial comments about syntax section" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:massimo@w3.org> ;
 foaf:name "Massimo Marchiori" ;
 foaf:initials "MM" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-04" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0165.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0127.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-04" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0165.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Various concerns with definition of abstract graph syntax.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Concerns clearly with JJC's text.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0127.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Citation is Jeremy's response.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-graph-syntax> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
*** Section 3.2> Two RDF literals are equal if and only if they are either both XML> literals and equal or both string literals and equal.
This def is superfluous, and can be cleared out.
*** Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2
These defs don't work, because they give in the ADM that XML literals
overlap with RDF literals. This ambiguity was a problem already implicitly
present in the old RDF spec, and never really clarified so far. You need to
make the ADM more fine-grained, and extend their ADM representations
with a flag or so, to make these two sets disjoint (but see also the
next issue).
*** Section 3.2.2
This is a more higher-level issue on XML literals: do we really need to
have them at the ADM data model level? With the ongoing work on data
types, wouldn't it be better to just have string literals as the only
basic datatype here?
I see this is already somehow mentioned in 2.2.5:> [[[Review this on resolution of datatypes issues]]]
and I would favor to drop them if possible, and just use a generic datatyping
mechanism (otherwhise, the basic ADM gets more complex (as seen above), and risks
to unnecessarily complicate the datatyping mechanism. Anyway, yes, this is
dependant on the final resolution on datatyping.
*** Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5> A tidy set of nodes is one in which no two nodes have equal labels. A tidy> set of nodes may have any number of distinct blank nodes
Mmm, do we need to introduce the "tidy" concept (as a name)? It's not
really needed (there are not "untidy" sets used in RDF), and it gives a
longer and more complex def.
So, suggestion: just define the RDF graph in its shortest and simplest way:
: B is an infinite set disjoint from (RDF-Lits U URI-refs)
: An RDF-triple belongs to ((URI-refs U B),URI-refs,(URI-refs U B U RDF-Lits))
: An RDF Graph is a set of RDF-triples.
(note: I'd even say a *finite* set of RDF-triples, but if nobody else cares,
I'm fine with the more general, "non-always-computable" def).
*** Section 3.6> Two RDF graphs are equal if and only if they are isomorphic
We just need the notion of "isomorphism", so this should be deleted, and
the section renamed accordingly with "3.6 Graph Isomorphism"
(there's no real use to have two names for the same thing).
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 007 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "007-Meaning-machinery" ;
 rdfs:label "Comments on RDF meaning and machinery" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com> ;
 foaf:name "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" ;
 foaf:initials "PFPS" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-06" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0174.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0174.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Various objections to text dealing with assertions and meaning
 in RDF, particularly at the overlap between formal and social
 meaning.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Most of these comments seem to address GK's text.
 Need to check some comments in detail, as precise target
 referent isn't immediately obvious.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-26" ;
 iss:cite <003-modeltheory.html> ;
 iss:cite <016-nodelabels.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 1. The phrase "say anything about anything" has been a useful sound-bite,
 but I agree is not most appropriate here.
 I think saying that "Anyone can make simple assertions about anything"
 is close enough for the purposes of this section.
 <p/>
 2. What can RDF express? Yes, I got that wrong, misunderstanding the meaning
 of "ground fact". I'll try to make 2.2.7 more precise.
 <p/>
 3. Yes, "certain meanings of RDF statements" is not the most helpful phrasing.
 See issue 003-ModelTheory.
 <p/>
 4. Concerning "no machinery for formalizing allowable inferences", the intent 
 was to say that RDF has no way to express these. I'll change it to:
 "with no way to formally express allowable inferences".
 <p/>
 5. The matter of node labelling has been separated into a separate issue,
 016-NodeLabels.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Comments folded in to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#xtocid48014> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#xtocid48015> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-formal> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-interaction> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
Some Comments on
 Resource Description Framework (RDF):
 Concepts and Abstract Data Model
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20020829/
The title of Section 2.2.6 is misleading at best, and just plain wrong
at worst. RDF cannot ``say anything about anything.'' For example,
it cannot say that every person has at most one parent. So what can
RDF say? Does RDF allow ``universal expression of ground facts'', as
stated in Section 2.2.7? No, RDF cannot say, for example, that Sue or
Ellen is John's sister, or that Sue is not John's sister, or that if
Sue is John's sister then so is Ellen, all of which are ground facts.
Maybe RDF can say atomic ground facts? No, RDF cannot say, for
example that there is an purchase property between John, Susan, and
John's pet rock. Is there any place in the document that correctly
states what RDF can say? Not that I could find, not even the
statement that RDF can say ``assertions of specific properties about
specific named things'' because that ignores unnamed (or blank) nodes
in RDF graphs.
The document says that to support use by automated tools ``certain
meanings of RDF statements must be defined in a very precise
manner''. Does this mean that there are several, possibly different,
meanings of RDF statements?
The document says that the RDF core language has ``no machinery for
formalizing allowable inferences''. What then is RDF closure as defined in
the RDF Model Theory document?
The documents says that many of the nodes in an RDF graph are blank
and some are labelled. Why the differences? Does this mean that
there can be no RDF graphs where all nodes are labelled?
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 008 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "008-InteractionUnclear" ;
 rdfs:label "Interaction between social and formal meanings is unclear" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> ;
 foaf:name "Dave Reynolds" ;
 foaf:initials "DER" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-09" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0175.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-09" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0175.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Need to clarify text dealing with interaction between social
 and formal meaning, particularly with respect to mechanical
 inferences.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] This text is earmarked for reworking.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002jul/0197.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Try and use Pat Hayes' text and example to illustrate this
 more clearly (but changing the subject matter to reduce any
 possibility of offence).
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-30" ;
 iss:cite <013-various.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Section 2.3 has been extensively re-worked, incorporating comments from
 Pat Hayes and Tim Berners-Lee.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Comments accounted for in publicly accessible reworked document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-meaning> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-interaction> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-social> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
Section 2.3.3 is unclear.
In particular the statement:
 "Human publishers of RDF content commit themselves
 to the mechanically-inferred social obligations."
needs greater clarification.
Is the mechanical inference referred to here solely RDF entailment from the
asserted graph G (as implied by the context of the preceding paragraph)? If so,
that is reasonable since the space of RDF entailments is so limited.
However, without clarification the phrase might be construed to also refer to
entailment based on G together with graphs asserted elsewhere or to the sort of
deduction discussed in the subsequent paragraphs with its mix of social and
logical dimensions and not-demonstrably-valid implementations - that would not
be reasonable!
Section 2.3.2 is also a little problematic in the light of 2.3.3 in that the
"combination of social and technical machinery" for distinguishing assertions
from "other uses (e.g. citations, denials or illustrations)" is not actually
defined anywhere which makes "mechanically-inferred social obligations" extra
worrying.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 009 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "009-DatatypingSyntax" ;
 rdfs:label "Update abstract syntax to account for datatyped literals" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> ;
 foaf:name "RDF Core WG" ;
 foaf:initials "RDFcore" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-12" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002sep/0125.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-12" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002sep/0125.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Brian's note describing proposed distribution of the datatyped literal
 material among working group documents.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-16" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Working group accepted proposal. Abstract Syntax is Jeremy's expertise.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-09-30" ;
 iss:cite <http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The datatyping document whose contents are to be incorporated.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 This document release contains a reworking of the datatyping and abstract 
 syntax to incorporate this material.
 <p/>
 There is still some discussion about how to deal with language tags.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-graph-literal> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
2002年09月06日#4 jjc review material thus far on specifics of rdfs:Datatype,
rdfs:Literal and the abstract syntax of literals and produce a proposal for
wording in the Abs. Syntax document.
Reviewing
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Aug/0111.html
With apologies to the doc editors if they feel this is micromanaging, I
suggest that broadly:
 1.1 What is datatyping -> concepts
 1.2 desiderata -> concepts 2.2
 2.1 rdfs:Datatype -> schema
 2.2 datatype mapping -> concepts
 2.3 type literal -> concepts
 3. designation of ... -> syntax
 3.1 global datatyping -> schema
 3.2 datatype clashes -> schema
 4. model theory -> ho hum, lets put that in test cases.
 ok maybe not. MT doc then.
 5. schema -> schema
 6.1 not sure
 6.2 examples -> primer + other docs at editors discretion
Also needed:
 n-triples representation
 test cases
This suggests further actions:
 Graham or Jeremy update concepts doc to cover 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3
 Danbri or Guha update schema to cover 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 5
 Pat update model theory to cover 4
 DaveB update n-triples (depends on completion of 2002年09月06日#4)
 ?? prepare datatypes test cases
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 010 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "010-DatatypingConcepts" ;
 rdfs:label "Incorporate material on datatyping and typed literals" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> ;
 foaf:name "RDF Core WG" ;
 foaf:initials "RDFcore" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-12" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002sep/0125.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-12" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002sep/0125.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Brian's note describing proposed distribution of the datatyped literal
 material among working group documents.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-16" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Working group accepted proposal. Concepts are being handled by GK.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-09-30" ;
 iss:cite <http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Citation is the datatyping document whose contents are to be incorporated.
 <p>
 New placeholder sections Literals and Datatypes have been created, 
 with some initial text.
 Final resolution may depend on the outcome of ongoing discusion of untyped
 literals.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-30" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002sep/0125.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Edited in conceptual material from datatyping draft, per Brian's suggestion.
 Literals and datatyping are treated in two separate but cross-referenced sections.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#xtocid48013> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-concepts> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
2002年09月06日#4 jjc review material thus far on specifics of rdfs:Datatype,
rdfs:Literal and the abstract syntax of literals and produce a proposal for
wording in the Abs. Syntax document.
Reviewing
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Aug/0111.html
With apologies to the doc editors if they feel this is micromanaging, I
suggest that broadly:
 1.1 What is datatyping -> concepts
 1.2 desiderata -> concepts 2.2
 2.1 rdfs:Datatype -> schema
 2.2 datatype mapping -> concepts
 2.3 type literal -> concepts
 3. designation of ... -> syntax
 3.1 global datatyping -> schema
 3.2 datatype clashes -> schema
 4. model theory -> ho hum, lets put that in test cases.
 ok maybe not. MT doc then.
 5. schema -> schema
 6.1 not sure
 6.2 examples -> primer + other docs at editors discretion
Also needed:
 n-triples representation
 test cases
This suggests further actions:
 Graham or Jeremy update concepts doc to cover 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3
 Danbri or Guha update schema to cover 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 5
 Pat update model theory to cover 4
 DaveB update n-triples (depends on completion of 2002年09月06日#4)
 ?? prepare datatypes test cases
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 011 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "011-DatatypingAcknowledgement" ;
 rdfs:label "Include appropriate recogition to authors of datatyping draft" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> ;
 foaf:name "RDF Core WG" ;
 foaf:initials "RDFcore" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-11" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002sep/0120.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-11" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002sep/0120.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Brian's proposal to RDFcore to recogniz ethe datatype document authors.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-16" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Working group accepted proposal.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-30" ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Added the following to acknowledgements section:
 <p>
 This document contains a significant contribution from Pat Hayes, 
 Sergey Melnik and Patrick Stickler, under whose leadership was 
 developed the framework described in the RDF family of specifications 
 for representing datatyped values, such integers and dates.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-acknowledgments> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
I would like to ask the WG to join me in expressing our thanks for the
monumental efforts that Pat Hayes, Sergey Melnick and Patrick Stickler have
put into the work on datatypes for RDF. The work on datatypes began nearly
a year ago. I don't have the tools to determine how many email messages or
how many document drafts there have been on the subject, but the answer is
"a lot". Hmmm, that looks like a lexical form of ... oh never mind that
for now.
Many others have also contributed to the solution of this problem, but I
felt that we should specifically acknowledge the contributions of the
editors of the WD that is now, not to be.
What matters, is that they have led us to, what I believe, is an excellent
solution and have accepted with exceptional grace that that solution is not
best described in a separate document.
I have an action from the last telecon to ensure that these gentlemen
receive appropriate acknowledgement for their efforts. After consulting
with Eric, I understand that the mechanism for acknowledging specific
contributions to a specification, is to include an appropriate paragraph in
the acknowledgements section of affected documents.
I suggest a paragraph similar to the following (better words welcome) be
included in the primer, syntax, concepts, schema and model theory documents.
[[
The method described in the RDF family of specifications for representing
datatype values such integers and dates, was developed under the
leadership of Pat Hayes, Sergey Melnik and Patrick Stickler.
]]
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 012 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "012-AssertionConflictingUse" ;
 rdfs:label "Conflicting use of the term 'assertion'" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:fmanola@mitre.org> ;
 foaf:name "Frank Manola" ;
 foaf:initials "FrankM" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-08-23" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002aug/0226.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-08-23" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002aug/0226.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Frank Manola's message in response to RDFcore WG action 2002年08月23日#7
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-16" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 [GK] Frank's comments relate to text by GK.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-30" ;
 iss:cite <008-interactionunclear.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 I think these comments have been largely addressed by the reworking per
 issue 008-InteractionUnclear: the discussion of social and technical 
 context is much expended, and the wording in relation to application/rdf+xml
 has been somewhat decoupled from discussion of assertions.
 <p>
 In response to Frank's comments, I've added an abbreviated form of his "clown"
 example to section 2.3.2.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-10-14" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0153.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Frank not entirely happy with proposed revisions.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-10-22" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0282.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 New reworking proposed.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Resolved ;
 iss:when "2002-10-22" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0283.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Frank agrees!
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-social> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
Re:
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-08-05/Overview.htm#section-Social
ACTION 2002年08月23日#7, FrankM: Propose alternative text for the concepts
and abstract model document to rectify concerns with conflicting use of
"assertion".
To state the problem:
The last sentence but one of Section 2.3.1 says "The RDF model theory
treats RDF as a simple assertional language, in which each triple makes
a distinct assertion...".
The last sentence of the first para of Section 2.3.2 says "A combination
of social (e.g. legal) and technical machinery (protocols, file formats,
publication frameworks) provide the contexts that fix the intended
meanings of the vocabulary of some piece of RDF, and which distinguish
assertions from other uses (e.g. citations, denals or illustrations)."
It seems to me someone might read the first bit as saying "all triples
are assertions" and the second bit as saying "some triples are not
assertions" (e.g., "denals" [sic]), and then wonder what's going on.
The main problem is that the first bit (taken from the model theory) is
taken out of context, since there are a number of caveats elsewhere in
the model theory, e.g., "This only applies to uses of RDF that are
intended to be the assertion of simple propositional content."
Here's my suggestion: basically, add some stuff to the beginning of the
first paragraph so it reads something like:
2.3.2 Social meaning
While the formal semantics of an RDF statement (triple) is that of a
distinct assertion, individual RDF statements may have a social meaning
that is partly determined by the circumstances in which they are used.
For example, in English, a statement "I don't believe that 'George is a
clown' is true" contains the statement "George is a clown" and,
considering only that statement, "George is a clown" is a distinct
assertion. However, considering the whole sentence, this wouldn't be
considered an "assertion" (in the socially-understood sense of that
word) that "George is a clown". Similarly, a collection of RDF
statements could be specified in a circumstance in which the social
meaning was that they were not "assertions", but rather falsehoods
(e.g., a collection of RDF statements describing a web page entitled
"famous Internet myths"). At the same time, however, it is important to
understand that RDF/XML documents, i.e. encodings of RDF graphs, *can*
be used to make representations of claims or assertions about the 'real'
world. RDF graphs may be asserted to be true, and such an assertion
should be understood to carry the same social import and
responsibilities as an assertion in any other format (including an
assertion in a natural language document such as a contract). A
combination of social (e.g. legal) and technical machinery (protocols,
file formats, publication frameworks) provide the contexts that fix the
intended meanings of the vocabulary of some piece of RDF, and which
distinguish assertions from other uses (e.g. citations, denials or
illustrations).
On looking again, I also have a problem with the second paragraph, i.e.,
the one that says:
"For example, a media type, application/rdf+xml [RDF-MIME-TYPE ] is
being registered for indicating the use of RDF/XML that might be
published with the intent of being such an assertional representation
(as distinguished from other XML or text that may just happen to look
like RDF assertions)."
The way this whole paragraph follows the first one, it suggests that the
media type will distinguish between uses of RDF that are intended to be
assertions, and uses of RDF that have other meanings "(e.g., citations,
denials, or illustrations)". Then the parenthetical remark at the end
comes along: "(as distinguished from other XML or text that may just
happen to look like RDF assertions)", which suggests that this is a
purely technical issue, to disambiguate RDF from text that might "happen
to look like RDF assertions". I'm not sure this is the same thing.
What I suspect this is saying is that someone might publish RDF
statements in RDF/XML with the intention that these be interpreted as
*other* than assertions (e.g., denials), and that some other media type
will be used to indicate that; the media type application/rdf+xml is
reserved for RDF/XML that is not only RDF/XML, but is intended to
represent "real assertions". I suppose you can use the media type that
way if you want to, but I would argue that characterizing RDF/XML
published with the deliberate intent of representing a bunch of denials
as "other XML or text that just happens to look like RDF assertions" is
highly misleading. If what I suspect you to mean is what you *really*
mean, it would be clearer to state explicitly that the media type is to
distinguish RDF intended to be interpreted as assertions in the social
sense from RDF intended to be interpreted in some other way.
(I know there was some discussion at the telecon about the media type
business, but I missed whether it covered this particular issue or not).
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 013 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "013-Various" ;
 rdfs:label "Review comments posted by TimBL" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:timbl@w3.org> ;
 foaf:name "Tim Berners-Lee" ;
 foaf:initials "TimBL" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-08-18" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0092.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0130.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-08-18" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0092.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-rdfcadm-tbl.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Personal comments posted as marked-up copy of document.
 These comments cover all aspects of the document. We need to review
 more closely to determine what changes are called for.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-09-16" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0183.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Additional comment here about assertion.
 In particular, the distinguished role of the predicate is noted.
 Discuss.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-30" ;
 iss:cite <008-interactionunclear.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Other than the comments concerning section 3, most of the points raised have
 been worked into the reworking for issue 008-InteractionUnclear.
 <p>
 Specific point addressed separately:
 section 2.4.2, denotation of URIs, change made as requested.
 <p>
 Specific point not addressed in this version:
 bNodes for arc labels (however desirable, are not in the current version of RDF).
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-30" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Comments on section 3 to be addressed by JJC.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:QueryClosed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Reworked material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0130.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Citation is Jeremy's response to comments on syntax. 
 Together with earlier rework, this addresses all points raised.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
See: <a href='/index.cgi/contrast/http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-rdfcadm-tbl.html'>http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-rdfcadm-tbl.html</a>.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 014 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "014-SharedMeaning" ;
 rdfs:label "Shared meaning land grab" ;
 iss:raisedBy <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-16" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-interest/2002aug/0175.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-16" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-interest/2002aug/0175.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 In the cited message, Dan Brickley articulates some points about the relationship
 between formal model theory and meaning of RDF assertions. Is there something here
 that should be incorporated into the concepts document?
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-16" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Review/discuss Dan's comments to see if there is anything we should include.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 I think the substantive points are covered by this document revision.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-meaning> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
In the cited message, Dan Brickley articulates some points about the relationship
between formal model theory and meaning of RDF assertions. Is there something here
that should be incorporated into the concepts document?
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 015 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "015-UntypedLiteralsUntidy" ;
 rdfs:label "Untyped literals are untidy" ;
 iss:raisedBy <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-20" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002sep/0263.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-20" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002sep/0263.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 2002年09月20日 RDFcore telecon decides that untyped literals are untidy
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-20" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Needs explaining in concepts sections, maybe elsewhere.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-09-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002sep/0237.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 This comment from the chair throws some doubt onto whether this is a final decision.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-09-27" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0008.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 2002年09月27日 RDFcore telecon agrees to reopen the decision:
 see agendum 8 of minutes.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-10-11" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0131.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 2002年10月11日 RDFcore telecon agrees that untyped literals are tidy:
 see agenda 7/8 of minutes.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The whole area of literals has been extensively reworked, and this may
 become irrelevant as a distinct issue. Awaiting finalization of literals
 and datatyping before closing this issue.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-concepts> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-technical> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
2002年09月20日 RDFcore telecon decides that untyped literals are untidy.
This means that the concepts discussion must be reviewed and material
adjusted or added to explain why this is so. Also, may need to note
that naive syntactic query semantics aren't necessarily reflecting the 
underlying semnatics. Also, note common ways in which RDF has been
used.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 016 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "016-NodeLabels" ;
 rdfs:label "Description of blank and labelled nodes" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com> ;
 foaf:name "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" ;
 foaf:initials "PFPS" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-09-26" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0174.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0128.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-09-10" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0174.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Various objections to text dealing with assertions and meaning
 in RDF, particularly at the overlap between formal and social
 meaning.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-09-26" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 iss:cite <007-meaning-machinery.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Comment about node labelling refers to text in the abstract syntax section.
 Issue separated from 007-Meaning-machinery.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0128.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Citation is Jeremy's response.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829/#section-graph-node> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
Some Comments on
 Resource Description Framework (RDF):
 Concepts and Abstract Data Model
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20020829/
[...]
The documents says that many of the nodes in an RDF graph are blank
and some are labelled. Why the differences? Does this mean that
there can be no RDF graphs where all nodes are labelled?
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 017 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "017-DefiningURIMeaning" ;
 rdfs:label "How URI meaning is defined" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:connolly@w3.org> ;
 foaf:name "Dan Connolly" ;
 foaf:initials "DanC" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-24" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0319.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-24" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0319.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Dan argues that the meaning of URIs is not simply defined by the URI's 'owner',
 but by some convention whereby the URI gains meaning through use.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK's text, clearly.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <013-various.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002julsep/0092.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/29-rdfcadm-tbl.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 We seem to be getting conflicting views on this.
 TimBL seems to be saying the opposite, and asked for some text which
 conveyed something of Dan's apparent meaning to be changed:
 [[
 The "currency through use" leads one away from the fundamental 
 difference between RDF and natural language - that RDF predicates 
 can be defined by an authoritative body, and misuse by others will
 not (system working) undermine that authority.
 ]]
 
 In the absence of clear agreement, I'm inclined to say less rather
 than more.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-04" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 On re-reading, I take a different view of Dan's comment.
 <p/>
 Adopting Dan's comment with more emphasis on URIs-in-general than
 http: URIs in particular. Also, moved the corresponding text out 
 of the example sub-section.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-11-21/overview.html#section-interaction> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Issue at least partially reflected in published WD document, and further
 in the 2002年11月21日 working draft version cited.
 <p/>
 Some more work is going into the current editors' working draft,
 with wording to include reference to social context as well as
 defining authority.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html#section-social> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
The new section
2.3.3 Interaction between social and formal meaning
in the concepts doc is great stuff...
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/Latest/rdf-concepts.html#section-Social
18 October 2002
But I think it's missing an important point
when it says
"Note that this argument depends on another social convention of RDF,
which is that URIs 'belong to' somebody who has authority and
responsibility for defining their meanings."
That social convention comes from the combination
of the URI spec and (in this case) the HTTP spec.
The URI spec[RFC2717,RFC2396] is an agreement about how
the internet community allocates names and associates them with
protocols by which they take on meaning; the HTTP
URI scheme[RFC2616*] uses DNS in such a way that the
names take on meaning by way of messages from
the domain holder (or somebody they delegate to).
While other communications (documents, messages, ...)
may suggest meanings for such names, it's a local
policy decision whether those suggestions should
be heeded, while the meaning obtained thru
HTTP GET is, by internet-wide agreement, authoritative.
*section 3.2.2 in particular
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.2.2
Hmm... I didn't start that as suggested wording for
the spec, but maybe you can use it as such.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 018 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "018-ExampleDomains" ;
 rdfs:label "Domain names in examples don't follow style rules" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:connolly@w3.org> ;
 foaf:name "Dan Connolly" ;
 foaf:initials "DanC" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-24" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0319.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-24" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0319.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The domain schmuk.org is used. Should use example.org (or .com or .net).
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK's text, clearly.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 # iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Will change to schmuk.example.org. Also, check for others.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-04" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Example domains are fixed in working text.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into publicly accessible document. 
 Also changed name to avoid possibly offensive connotations.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html#section-interaction> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
use of http://schmuk.org/ conflicts with the W3C manual
of style:
* Domains in examples must adhere to section 3, "Reserved Example Second
Level Domain Names," in RFC 2606 [DOMAINS]. Use the domains example.com,
example.org, and example.net for all examples. The Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) reserves them for this purpose. If you need an
evocative name, use a machine name (e.g., http://cats.example.org).
 -- http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 019 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "019-TypoLeball" ;
 rdfs:label "New verb leballing?" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu> ;
 foaf:name "Pat Hayes" ;
 foaf:initials "PatH" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-24" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0325.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-24" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0325.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Spotted typo: 'leballed'.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK's text.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Already fixed, boringly.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html#section-social> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
It has a wonderful typo, which provides a new English word:
'leballing'. I propose this should be the present tense of 'leball
(v.) To attach a spherical object to something or someone, esp. in
order to confuse, disable or thwart its actions.'
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 020 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "020-BlankNodes" ;
 rdfs:label "No discussion of blank nodes" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.as.uk> ;
 foaf:name "Dave Beckett" ;
 foaf:initials "DaveB" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-24" ;
 iss:raisedCite <#none> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-24" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 No description of bNodes or Node identifiers to reference.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Possible new text.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-10-24" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Good point. I hadn't thought about this. I'll mull it over and see 
 if there's anything useful I can say without treading on other specs.
 I think it's probably appropriate that the concepts document says 
 something about the consequences of the model theory's treatment of
 bNodes -- in that respect it's not purely syntactic.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-04" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Added paragraph to section: 2.3.6 Representation of simple facts
 (note section numbers have changed since original comment.)
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-uri-vocabulary> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 (Note section number is now 2.3.2)
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20020829> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
I was just looking for something to link to, but there doesn't seem
to be anything on blank nodes, or more specifically blank node
identifers.
The first mention of blank nods is in a sentence in passing and
there's nothing on graph-specific identifiers. 
I guess this a syntax thing? Somebody needs to define what they are,
it shouldn't be the N-Triples spec!
I just grepped
 http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/Latest/rdf-concepts.html
and it seems pretty similar in this area.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 021 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "021-MeaningOfURIRefs" ;
 rdfs:label "Meaning of URI Refs" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:sandro@w3.org> ;
 foaf:name "Sandro Hawke" ;
 foaf:initials "SH" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-24" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0043.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-29" ;
 ### Add proper URL when published ###
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/tbd> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-24" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0043.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 I'll try to precis:
 <p/>
 1. An RDF document must be understood to assert the truth of all documents
 named in the URI parts of the URIrefs that it uses to label nodes and
 properties.
 <p/>
 2a. The difference between formal and natural language is overplayed.
 <p/>
 2b. Predicate has no special status in determining meaning.
 <p/>
 2c. Only two kinds of entailment.
 <p/>
 The rest is, as far as I can tell, a discussion of the issues
 raised by these claims.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "GK" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK's text.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html#section-entailment> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 1. RDF document accepts truth of documents indicated by URIrefs it uses
 <p/>
 I think there's can be big difference in principle between accepting 
 the truth of a document and accepting a definition given in a document.
 In some cases, if a definition depends on the entire content of a document
 that contains it, the two may become the same. I'm not ready to go
 beyond the first level of acceptance. I don't think RDF needs to say
 any more than that at this time, whatever community consensus about
 the latter may be.
 <p/>
 2a. The difference between formal and natural language is overplayed.
 <p/>
 Hmmm... maybe. The meaning is still socially present, but cannot be
 formally inferred. All-in-all, we may be better to pull this last
 part of section 2.3.3, since I don't think it really adds any new
 information to what has gobe before. In it's original form, I think
 it was intended as a clarification, but it seems to be more prone
 to cause confusion, or disagreement.
 <p/>
 2b. Predicate has no special status in determining meaning.
 <p/>
 This was my interpretation of a comment made by TimBL. I think
 the statement as made is true: for the most part it reinforces the
 idea that the meaning of a URI isn't subject to whimsical change.
 But the emphasis on the predicate may be overstated.
 I could see if I can soften the language there
 <p/>
 2c. Only two kinds of entailment.
 <p/>
 I think this is more a matter of presentation than of fact.
 I think I can see why you find RDF-entailment + "the rest" to
 be appealing, but I think that could be a very difficult message
 to convey to a wider audience, for whom the very idea of entailment
 may be a new concept.
 <p/>
 And I think "no way to formally express allowable inferences" is
 exactly true of RDF (core). Beyond that, I agree with what you say
 about informal description of formal terms, but think that would
 be too much to try and say in this document.
 <p/>
 ---
 <p/>
 This is a long commentary, which touches on many subtleties.
 Most are beyond the scope of this document to define completely,
 because the issues are not fully understood to the extent that there
 is a clear community consensus. I find I agree with much of what
 is said in sections 4 and 5, to the extent that I understand it, and
 don't see that it is greatly at odds with the current text.
 <p/>
 Note that I've also added a section 2.4.6 discussing 
 entailment, which I think touches on some of the points raised.
 <p/>
 Finally, I think a point where we diverge is the idea that RDF entailment
 is a relationship between documents. I don't think it is. I think
 it is a relationship between RDF graphs, which may be contained in
 documents or constructed from the contents of one or more documents.
 There is some machinery at work here that I think is outside the 
 scope of the core RDF language specification.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0052.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-interest/2002oct/0111.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-interest/2002oct/0107.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-interest/2002oct/0119.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Follow-up from Sandro, and ensuing discussion on RDF-interest.
 <p/>
 The 4th citation (0119.html) contains an opposing viewpoint from Pat Hayes.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0052.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 I think this debate is reading too much into the RDF core specification.
 <p/>
 Concerning:
 Re: RDF entailment is a relationship between graphs, not documents. I
 don't think the difference matters. I'm happy to rephrase everything
 I said to be about graphs. (or I would be if it weren't so long!)
 <p/>
 I do think there's a difference, because a graph has a clear formal definition,
 but a document does not (in this context).
 What this means is that if one provides a formal definition of how to construct
 an RDF graph from a document or documents, then the RDFcore definition of entailment
 can be applied. Future work may provide such a definition, but to try and do so
 now would risk the progress we have made.
 <p/>
 Concerning:
 Re: "I think [there] can be big difference in principle between
 accepting the truth of a document and accepting a definition given in
 a document." Yes, in principle, but probably not in fact (alas). See
 [2], seconded by Peter.
 <p/>
 Well, I think I mis-stated that slightly. RDF itself doesn't do definitions
 in this sense: it is interpretations that define denotations of a URIref.
 So one won't find any definitions simply by looking at an RDF graph, just
 assertions that are true under satisfying interpretations. One might
 introduce some convention for a publisher to use RDF to define what they
 mean by a URI, but that would be an additional, extra-RDF convention,
 and the convention used must distinguish between definitional and other
 material. Which puts it out of scope for the current RDF specifications.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 No specific change has been suggested that we think is appropriate 
 at this time.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html#section-interaction> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html#section-rdfdifference> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html#section-rdfinferences> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
(This is a very long and complex message.
 Please refer to the original message at:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0043.html)
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 022 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "022-SocialMeaning" ;
 rdfs:label "Social meaning undermines semantic web" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com> ;
 foaf:name "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" ;
 foaf:initials "PFPS" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-27" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0053.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-29" ;
 ### Add proper URL when published ###
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/tbd> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-27" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0053.html> ;
 iss:cite <023-syntaxequality.html> ;
 iss:cite <024-various.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 My precis: see original for detail.
 <p/>
 What is the point of material on social meaning?
 <p/>
 If not all RDF on the web is assertions, how is this indicated,
 or if there is no such way why mention it?
 <p/>
 Committing to the meaning of natural language tags: how can
 any application do this without natural language understanding?
 <p/>
 Committing to the meaning of URI as "ill specified" intent of
 some organization, which may be changed at any time. How can
 anyone commit to anything involving a URI they don't own?
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-28" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK to field issue.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-11-04" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The point of this material is that to be useful, RDF has to operate
 in a social context. Otherwise it's just an academic exercise.
 <p/>
 The mechanism for indicating assertion vs non-assertion is not defined
 here. RDF is part of a larger system.
 <p/>
 Concerning the need to understand natural language:
 I'm having problems understanding the concern here.
 I don't recognize the problem raised.
 There's no requirement for applications to understand
 natural language. I should think about an e-commerce example to
 illustrate this.
 <p/>
 Committing to intent: I suppose that in a high-value environment, one
 would have to be very careful whose URIs you used. Again, I think there
 could be an illuminating e-commerce example here.
 <p/>
 On commitment: note that it is not an <em>application</em> that makes a
 commitment by publishing RDF, but a person or organization who causes
 the material to be published. 
 So committing to a statement that uses someone else's vocabulary 
 involves an element of trust, like almost any social interaction.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Consider an e-commerce application: a quotation and corresponding purchase 
 order may be rendered as RDF, thus creating a legal contract. 
 The quotation contains a human-readable description of goods to be supplied. 
 In normal operation, an invoice (also rendered as RDF) would create a legal
 liability on the customer to make the payment indicated, provided that the
 goods described have indeed been supplied. This liability does not depend
 on any software's ability to understand the human-readable description of
 the goods.
 <p/>
 In a plausible implementation, the software systems operated by the customer
 would require an additional input in the form of a confirmation from a
 suitably authorized person that the goods had been received before responding
 to an invoice with a release of payment. Although related, this is a distinct 
 from the issue of liability addressed in the document.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 ### Add proper URL when published ###
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/tbd> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The text concerned has been revised and simplified for the next WS rekease.
 But the fundamental principle remains.
 If this continues to be a point of concern then it should be subjected
 to wider discussion during last call.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-social> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-interaction> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
What is the point of the ``social meaning'' stuff? Is it supposed to
indicate that RDF documents available on the web are not always
supposed to be considered to be assertions? If so, how is this done?
Can I, for example, use rdfs:comment to put disclaimers into an RDF
document? If there is no way in RDF to make such disclaimers, then
why bother to bring up the possibility? 
I find the whole example about clowns to be completely mystifying. If
you take this example at face value, then *any* use of any RDF commits
to the natural language implications of rdfs:comment tags. How can
any organization deploy an RDF-aware application under these
circumstances (except by having that application understand the
implications of arbitrary natural language).
Similarly, the tying of the meaning of a URI to the ill-specified
intent of some organization poses a giant bar to the deployment of
RDF. Under these circumstances how can any organization use an URI
that they do not own? The owning organization might, after all,
choose to change the meaning of any URI they own at any time. This
seems to me to be a bar to any communication between organizations
using RDF.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 023 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "023-SyntaxEquality" ;
 rdfs:label "No sense to define equality on literals" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com> ;
 foaf:name "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" ;
 foaf:initials "PFPS" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-27" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0053.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0126.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-27" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0053.html> ;
 iss:cite <022-socialmeaning.html> ;
 iss:cite <024-various.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 What is the point of defining the notion of equality on literals
 and other syntax elements?
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-28" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Syntax issues assigned to Jeremy.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0126.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0141.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0158.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0159.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0164.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Citation is Jeremy's response on this matter. 
 The equality definition remains, but with words to point out that this is not
 always useful for applications.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-graph-syntax> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
The RDF graph is syntax. As such it makes no sense to define a notion
of equality over literals, which are pieces of syntax. It is just as
if one wanted to defined equality in C by defining it over pieces of a
C program. Similarly, it makes no sense to define equality of nodes
or triples.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 024 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "024-Various" ;
 rdfs:label "Model theory, examples, inference" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com> ;
 foaf:name "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" ;
 foaf:initials "PFPS" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-27" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0053.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-29" ;
 ### Add proper URL when published ###
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/tbd> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-27" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0053.html> ;
 iss:cite <022-socialmeaning.html> ;
 iss:cite <023-syntaxequality.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 No nead to qualify term "Model theory"?
 <p/>
 Some examples don't make sense.
 <p/>
 RDF does provide some inferential machinery (section 2.2.7?).
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-28" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK working through comments.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-04" ;
 #iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Reference to model theory now as used by literature of mathematics and logic.
 Given early confusion about RDF, I think this qualification should be made
 for non-mathematician readers.
 <p/>
 I don't understand the problem with the examples.
 <p/>
 Removed reference to inference machinery.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-21" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-11-21/overview.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Removed some problematic examples.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 ### Add proper URL when published ###
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/tbd> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 We believe these issues have been addressed by changes to the forthcoming working draft.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#xtocid4809> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#xtocid48015> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-datatypes> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
Model theory is a mathematical term, not something that is only used
and understood by logicians. As model theory has a consistent meaning
throughout the RDF documents, there is no reason to qualify the term.
It would be much better if the examples in the document made sense.
For example, floats(oil,water) is not a triple that makes sense,
unless you make oil denote some particular bit of oil that is
currently floating on some particular bit of water, which does not
appear to be the intended meaning of these terms in the example.
Similar problems are exhibited by the boiling example.
RDF does provide and, in some sense, requires some inferential
machinery. In particular RDFS requires that rdfs:subClassOf be
transitive.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 025 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "025-DatatypeIncompatibility" ;
 rdfs:label "Datatype incompatibility with XML schema" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com> ;
 foaf:name "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" ;
 foaf:initials "PFPS" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-27" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0053.html> ;
 ### Add proper URL when published ###
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-29" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-27" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0053.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Datatype incompatibility with XML schema, because of requirement
 for all values to have a lexical form.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-28" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK working on issue.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-10-28" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0396.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Asked working group for advice.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Resolved ;
 iss:when "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:cite <http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/tmp/rdfc/#section-datatypes> ;
 #iss:cite <response msg when available, then delete above> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 We understood the comment as referring to union datatypes and
 have thus weakened the condition to read:
 "Each member of the value space may be paired with any number (including
 zero) of members of the lexical space (lexical representations for that
 value)."
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 ### Add proper URL when published ###
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-datatypes> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
The definition of datatypes is incompatible with XML Schema. Removing
the requirement that each value have a lexicalization would remove a
source of incompatability, and would not change anything as far as RDF
is concerned. 
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 026 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "026-ConceptsVarious" ;
 rdfs:label "BWM various comments (concepts)" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> ;
 foaf:name "Brian McBride" ;
 foaf:initials "BWM" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0456.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0456.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/att-0456/01-rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Various stylistic comments.
 This issue is raised to include comments addressed to all sections
 except 3, 4 and 5.1.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 This issue is raised to include comments addressed to the non-syntax
 and non-charmod issues.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0467.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0470.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0480.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0483.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Some questions and comments.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-01" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0490.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 I think I've incorporated most of Brian's comments into the document editors'
 working copy.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-26/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
I've done a pass through the whole document. There is now some purple text
to indicate technical issues, though not a lot and quite a lot more green text.
[and from an earlier message...]
I attach a marked up copy of the concepts doc containing a lot of green
ink. The good news is that its green which makes it stylistic rather than
substantive comment. The bad news is that there is a lot of it.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 027 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "027-SyntaxVarious" ;
 rdfs:label "BWM various comments (syntax)" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> ;
 foaf:name "Brian McBride" ;
 foaf:initials "BWM" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0456.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-26" ;
 ### add released citation when published ###
 iss:resolvedCite <http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/tmp/rdfc/> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0456.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/att-0456/01-rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Various stylistic comments.
 This issue is raised to include comments addressed to sections 3, 4 and 5.1.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 This issue is raised to include comments addressed to the syntax
 and charmod issues.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-26" ;
 ### add released citation when published
 iss:cite <http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/tmp/rdfc/> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to next publicly accessible document.
 <p/>
 We're still working on refining the URI character escaping text.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-26/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
I've done a pass through the whole document. There is now some purple text
to indicate technical issues, though not a lot and quite a lot more green text.
[and from an earlier message...]
I attach a marked up copy of the concepts doc containing a lot of green
ink. The good news is that its green which makes it stylistic rather than
substantive comment. The bad news is that there is a lot of it.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 028 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "028-RetrievableURIDenotations" ;
 rdfs:label "Document says too much about the denotation of retrievable URIs" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:fmanola@mitre.org> ;
 foaf:name "Frank Manola" ;
 foaf:initials "FrankM" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0376.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/#xtocid103660> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-25" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0376.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Section 2.4.2 is too prescriptive with respect to what retrievable URIs denote.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK to rework.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Wording gets denotation too bound up with retrievability of URI.
 <p/>
 Also section 5.2: two distinct ideas are conflated here.
 Need to back out of the denotational commitment for retrievable URIs,
 which is out of scope, and focus on the fragment issue.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-04" ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Sections revised to say less about retrieval using URIs.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/#xtocid103660> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-uri-vocabulary> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#xtocid103660> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
In section 2.4.2 the draft says: "The label on a node indicates what
that node is meant to represent...Some URIrefs may indicate web
resources, and a node thus labelled denotes that resource. Other
URIrefs represent abstract ideas or values rather than a retrievable Web
resource...".
It seems to me that we can't decide in our concepts document what
URIrefs denote (especially since RDF doesn't know whether a URIref is
that of a retrievable Web resource or not). If I write triples
<http://www.mitre.org> ex:corporateName "The MITRE Corporation"
with the intent that <http://www.mitre.org> denotes The MITRE
Corporation, it may be a poor choice of URIref for The MITRE
Corporation, but that's still what it denotes, right? On the other
hand, if what Section 2.4.2 says is correct, it seems to me that the
Model Theory ought (if it doesn't already) state that what the URIrefs
of retrievable Web resources denote is predefined.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 029 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "029-DocumentTitle" ;
 rdfs:label "Proposed change of document title" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> ;
 foaf:name "Brian McBride" ;
 foaf:initials "BWM" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0471.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002nov/0058.html> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0471.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0474.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Proposed change document title to "Resource Description Framework (RDF) Concepts and Abstract Syntax"
 <p/>
 A follow-up message notes the need to coordinate such changes between documents.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-10-29" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 No change yet.
 Needs working group agreement to change all affected documents.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-04" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002nov/0058.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Title changed, per editorial discretion granted by WG. See agendum 9.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002nov/0058.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Closed, per response of 2002年11月04日.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-10-26/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
I'm wondering about our use of the term data model.
What do folks think about renaming the concepts doc to:
 Resource Description Framework (RDF) Concepts and Abstract Syntax
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 030 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "030-VariousDanC" ;
 rdfs:label "Various comments from DanC" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:connolly@w3.org> ;
 foaf:name "Dan Connolly" ;
 foaf:initials "DanC" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-11-01" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002nov/0001.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-11-01" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002nov/0001.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Various points raised by Dan Connolly.
 Some "critical", to be addressed before last call WD is published.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-11-04" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK will work through these for next WD publication.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-04" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002nov/0076.html> ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002nov/0077.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Comments or questions on some points raised.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-04" ;
 #iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Most comments have been incorporated 
 (except where the corresponding text no longer exists).
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-08" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002oct/0389.html> ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-archive/2002oct/att-0066/02-rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
See full text of review at:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0001.html
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue --
################ Issue 031 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "031-ReferenceLinks" ;
 rdfs:label "Reference links need updating" ;
 iss:raisedBy <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-11-06" ;
 iss:raisedCite <031-referencelinks.html> ;
 #iss:resolvedDate "..." ;
 #iss:resolvedCite <http://...> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Waiting ;
 iss:when "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-11-06" ;
 #iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Need to check all reference links before publication of last call WD.
 Frank has noted RDF primer link is old.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-11-06" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK takes responsibility for this.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 iss:when "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-archive/2002nov/0094.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Sent summary of reference status to Jeremy, who has document editing token.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Resolved ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 #iss:when "2002-??-??" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-11-05/rdf-concepts.html#section-references> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
Check all referenmce links are up to date.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue 031 --
################ Issue 032 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "032-XMLWrapperNotNeeded" ;
 rdfs:label "No need for XML literal wrapper" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:paul@prescod.net> ;
 foaf:name "Paul Prescod" ;
 foaf:initials "PP" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-11-13" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0109.html> ;
 iss:resolvedDate "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:resolvedCite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-xmlliteral> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-jjc> ;
 iss:status iss:Postponed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-11-13" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0109.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The XML literal wrapper is not needed.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0129.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Comment may be true, but if so help is needed to find more appropriate solution.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:NewInput ;
 iss:when "2002-11-18" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0131.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Further input following Jeremy's response, indicating that the current approach is
 problematic from an XML perspective.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Postponed ;
 iss:when "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-xmlliteral> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 This is ugly, but not a fatal flaw. 
 This may be an issue for the WG to reconsider later.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-xmlliteral> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
There is no need for the concept of a forged rdf-wrapper. Just as the
integer 5 does not have to be "wrapped" to be a value, the nodeset
corresponding to an XML literal should not have to be wrapped. It is
just a value. Or else you could think of them as graph nodes with
identity. Either model is better than forging a string context for data
that is necessarily already parsed by the time it is interpreted.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue 032 --
################ Issue 033 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "033-DefineEntailment" ;
 rdfs:label "Entailment is not adequately defined" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:shelleyp@burningbird.net> ;
 foaf:name "Shelley Powers" ;
 foaf:initials "SP" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-11-21" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0146.html> ;
 #iss:resolvedDate "..." ;
 #iss:resolvedCite <http://...> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Waiting ;
 iss:when "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-11-21" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0146.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The term "entailment" is introduced, but not adequately defined.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-11-26" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 This is part of my mission here - #g.
 <p/>
 I think we may want to reverse the trend to reducing text in this area, 
 and add an additional paragraph of explanation aimed at explaining the 
 significance of entailment as underpinning inference.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Resolved ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 #iss:when "2002-??-??" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-entailment> ;
 #iss:sectionRef <strong> ;
 #iss:sectionRef <strong> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
Again, though, if this document is for a general audience, then you may want
to consider use of certain terms such as entailment. You give an example,
and you talk about it, but you don't define it.
I as a programmer, not a semantician or a researcher, or someone who dabbles
in AI and KM in my spare time will look at your section on entailment and
say, "Do they mean equality? If so, why don't they say equality? Why are
they using this term called 'entailment'?"
You can't assume a specialized vocabulary and say that a document is for a
general technical audience.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue 033 --
################ Issue 034 ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "034-DocumentRetrieval" ;
 rdfs:label "Does interpretation of fragment require document retrieval?" ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:roland.schwaenzl@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de> ;
 foaf:name "Roland Schwaenzl" ;
 foaf:initials "RS" ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "2002-11-28" ;
 iss:raisedCite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0224.html> ;
 #iss:resolvedDate "..." ;
 #iss:resolvedCite <http://...> ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 iss:status iss:Waiting ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "2002-11-28" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0224.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 The section of fragment identifiers seems to raise some confusion
 about whether document retrieval is required by RDF.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 iss:owner <#editor-gk> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 GK's words on the rack.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 iss:when "2002-11-29" ;
 iss:cite <http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-comments/2002octdec/0237.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Reply, asking if text needs to be beefed up to make this clear.
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Resolved ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 #iss:when "2002-??-??" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/#xtocid103660> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""> I don't recall our docs have any mention of XPointer. Fragments are> discussed in RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax> 5.2 Fragment Identifiers> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#xtocid103660
[...]
What kind of retrieval action specifically is assumed in RDF Concepts 5.2
(compare the NOTE in [RFC 3023, 7.]).
My understanding of RDF Semantics is, that it does not require
the existence of an RDF/XML document representing the URI, presumed
in your first reference, when a URI#fragement is used in an RDF
graph.
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue 034 --
################ Issue skeleton ################
 iss:issue
 [ iss:name "nnn-..." ;
 rdfs:label "..." ;
 iss:raisedBy
 [ foaf:mbox <mailto:...@...> ;
 foaf:name "..." ;
 foaf:initials "..." ] ;
 iss:raisedDate "..." ;
 iss:raisedCite <...> ;
 #iss:resolvedDate "..." ;
 #iss:resolvedCite <http://...> ;
 #iss:owner <#editor-???> ;
 #iss:status iss:... ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:history
 (
 [ iss:status iss:Raised ;
 iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Assigned ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 #iss:owner <#editor-...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Comment ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Response ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Resolved ;
 #iss:when "..." ;
 iss:cite <http://...> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 ...
 """ ]
 [ iss:status iss:Closed ;
 #iss:when "2002-??-??" ;
 iss:cite <http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/rdf-concepts/2002-??-??/rdf-concepts.html> ;
 rdfs:comment
 """
 Material incorporated into to publicly accessible document.
 """ ]
 ) ;
 iss:sectionRef <http://www.w3.org/tr/2002/wd-rdf-concepts-20021108/....> ;
 #iss:sectionRef <strong> ;
 #iss:sectionRef <strong> ;
 rdfs:comment
"""
... text of issue presented
""" ] ;
# -- End of issue nnn --
 iss:theEnd "PlaceHolder" .
#
# End of issue list for RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax
#
#--------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
# $Log: RDFConceptIssues.n3,v $
# Revision 1.23 2002年11月29日 18:27:33 graham
# Updated RDF Concepts issues list
#
# Revision 1.22 2002年11月29日 14:52:46 graham
# Updated issues list
#
# Revision 1.21 2002年11月26日 19:49:41 graham
# Add entailment issue, update others
#
# Revision 1.20 2002年11月26日 17:44:00 graham
# Updated issues, added submitter initials to data
#
# Revision 1.19 2002年10月29日 19:43:21 graham
# Added comments from Brian and Frank.
# Updated issue raised by Sandro.
#
# Revision 1.18 2002年10月28日 08:25:10 graham
# Added PFPS' comments
#
# Revision 1.17 2002年10月25日 17:21:41 graham
# Updated to reflect document changes.
# Trying to close down issues.
#
# Revision 1.16 2002年09月26日 16:59:00 graham
# Another minor fix
#
# Revision 1.15 2002年09月26日 16:49:57 graham
# Another minor fix
#
# Revision 1.14 2002年09月26日 16:37:20 graham
# Fix syntax error
#
# Revision 1.13 2002年09月26日 16:32:27 graham
# Apply edits for issue 001-Editorial
# Apply edits for issue 002-InconsistentAssertions
# Apply edits for issue 003-ModelTheory
# Apply edits for issue 005-Editorial-Concepts
# Apply edits for issue 007-Meaning-machinery
#
# Revision 1.12 2002年09月25日 09:18:47 graham
# Update untidy literals decision
#
# Revision 1.11 2002年09月23日 18:48:12 graham
# Minor tweaks
#
# Revision 1.10 2002年09月19日 15:44:57 graham
# Minor update - fix typo
#
# Revision 1.9 2002年09月19日 15:13:20 graham
# Tweaked content so that placeholders don't get picked up for reporting
#
# Revision 1.8 2002年09月16日 13:56:00 graham
# Add reference to DanBri "shared meaning landgrab" comments
#
# Revision 1.7 2002年09月16日 13:27:58 graham
# Added TimBL comments from 2002年08月18日
#
# Revision 1.6 2002年09月16日 11:14:45 graham
# Updated RDF concepts issue list with RDFcore WG decisions
#
# Revision 1.5 2002年09月10日 17:46:16 graham
# Updated to permit processing by document issue report generation software
#
# Revision 1.4 2002年09月10日 13:13:50 graham
# Added CVS log
#
</div><div class="naked_ctrl">
<form action="/index.cgi/contrast" method="get" name="gate">
<p><a href="http://altstyle.alfasado.net">AltStyle</a> によって変換されたページ <a href="http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues.n3">(-&gt;オリジナル)</a>
/ <label>アドレス: <input type="text" name="naked_post_url" value="http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues.n3" size="22" /></label> <label>モード: <select name="naked_post_mode">
<option value="default">デフォルト</option>
<option value="speech">音声ブラウザ</option>
<option value="ruby">ルビ付き</option>
<option value="contrast" selected="selected">配色反転</option>
<option value="larger-text">文字拡大</option>
<option value="mobile">モバイル</option>
</select>
<input type="submit" value="表示" />
</p>
</form>
</div>