W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Determination of subjects/objects (was: ISSUE-42)

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:09:03 +0100
Message-ID: <a707f8300707301009n4b4bd067w82a17423208a976a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Hi Manu (and Ben),

> I see your argument: If they aren't going to use it, and if it doesn't
> cause any harm, then why not put it in there?

But that wasn't my argument. :)

I was only trying to say that I don't think it is sufficient to argue
against some feature or another by saying that the syntax is too
difficult for novice authors, if the feature in question is something
that we agree we need, and additionally, the feature is, by its
nature, something that most authors will never see.

That's very different to saying 'let's include anything and everything
because authors will never see it'; I didn't say that.

And it also doesn't mean that we shouldn't find an easier way of
expressing something, if the use-case for the feature is clear, but
the proposal needs some work.

But on this particular issue we don't actually have any use-cases, so
I'm not sure it's worth getting too hot under the collar about the
syntax (which I don't like either ;) ) until we see if any emerge.
I've never really liked the idea of giving a name to something that is
anonymous, even in 'normal' RDF, but I'm happy to wait and see if
someone comes up with an explanation for why we need this feature.

To finish; the reason I made my point was because it seemed to me that
there have been too many discussions where people think that it's
enough to argue against a proposal by saying that some syntax 'is too
complex'.

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 17:09:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:08 GMT