W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

re-open punctuationSyntax to discuss reification short-hand?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:36:07 -0600
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1112380567.15073.174.camel@localhost>

I'm afraid our publication candidate
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
  Revision: 1.290 2005/04/01 15:29:04 

in particular the reification syntax, is not consistent with
our decision...

resolved 2005-03-08 
        PROPOSED: adopt the turtle+variables syntax 
        
        ABSTENTIONS: SteveH, AlbertoR
 -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#punctuationSyntax

The syntax seems to have been introduced into the editor's
draft in Revision 1.242  2005/03/14. The editors are free to
tweak the design in areas where there's no binding WG decision,
but I think introducing reification syntax is changing the
design in a way that's relevant to the punctuationSyntax issue,
which was closed.


I can either
 - re-open the issue and entertain a proposal to include
   reification syntax, or
 - instruct the editors to remove the reification stuff
   so that the spec matches our decision on punctuationSyntax

I'm open to advice either way, but note that technical
argument *either for or against* the reification syntax
is only in order if the issue is re-opened. So even if you
argue against the syntax itself, you're also arging
*for* re-opening the issue. My question to you for
now is just whether the WG was aware of the relationship between
reification short-hand and the punctuationSyntax issue when the
8 March decision was taken. If not, the issue should be
re-opened.

The reification syntax discussion goes back at least
as far as 6 March...
"Working Draft feedback items "
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/thread.html#245

Now 6 March is before 8 March, but I, for one, didn't see
thru the "Working Draft feedback items" subject and notice
the discussion of reification syntax, so there's some sense
in which the WG can be said to be unaware of it, or unaware
of the relationship to punctuationSyntax, when the 8 March
decision was taken.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 1 April 2005 19:17:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT