W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Issue with the result set format

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:08:58 -0600
Message-ID: <20041126150858.A20556@monkeyfist.com>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 05:09:28PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy muttered something about:
> This is RDF :-) it may not always be a URI.  Only a property has that feature. 
> Anything else would imply some higher level constraint, including not a bNode.

Of course it may not always be a URI. In the cases where it is, I was
wondering whether it would be good to know that.

> > Schema support is overrated, IMO. Especially in such a simple format.
> Could you say more as to why it is overrated?

Well, as I understand it, the 'best practices' advice from the XML developer
community is that XML schema validation is often unnecessary, sometimes
doesn't do what people really need to do, and is usually a small part of a
larger set of problems.

Personally, I think the onus should be on form2 supporters to say what
validation offers in this case.

> Schema validation is something people do so that is a reason for form 2.

Eh, it's not a very good reason. 

> needs to be a counter argument for format 1 where it is, by design, not XML 
> Schema-able.  (The same debate has been had about RDF/XML.)

I thought we'd already judged there to be more support for the schema-less
version in this WG than for the schema-able version?

I don't want to argue about who bears the burden of proof here; I'd be happy
to standardize both forms. But, frankly, your having asked some folks at HP
doesn't convince me. ;>

You're one in a million
You've got to burn to shine
Received on Friday, 26 November 2004 21:09:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC