W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: What does it mean to “implement RDF” or “conform to RDF”?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 18:04:32 +0100
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F4E53E94-231B-4429-A03A-0663FEDDE33D@cyganiak.de>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Hi Eric,

On 12 May 2012, at 13:57, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> I'm not sure all of this defines "conformance". In fact, it was my
> impression that specs which define a language which does something
> (e.g. SPARQL maps RDF graphs and queries to solution sets) have
> conformance criteria while languages whichs simply are (XML, RDF,
> Turtle) don't benefit from expressing a notion of conformance.

I find this distinction rather strange. Languages don't “do something”. Agents do. And surely, the XML and Turtle specs need to explain how to “do something”: mapping certain kinds of strings to, respectively, XML infosets or RDF graphs.

My understanding is that a recommendation-track W3C specification without conformance clause violates W3C's normative QA Guidelines:

Personally I find the W3C QA Guidelines very well thought out and compelling.

Received on Saturday, 12 May 2012 17:05:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:04 UTC