W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > June 2006

Re: comments on Editor's Draft of UCR

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:29:57 +0100
Message-ID: <44A116B5.2020102@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
CC: csma@ilog.fr, public-rif-wg@w3.org

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
> Subject: Re: comments on Editor's Draft of UCR
> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:32:07 -0400
> 
>> Hirtle, David wrote:
>>> There are actually two alignment CSFS:
>>> Alignment with Semantic Web -- RDF and OWL
>>> Alignment with Key W3C Specifications -- XML
>>>
>>> You're probably right that "Alignment with the Semantic Web" should
>>> support "Widescale Adoption"...
>>>
>>> Actually, I think the two alignment CSFs should be merged. The XML, RDF
>>> and OWL reqs could all fit as "Alignment with the Semantic Web", for
>>> example.
>> My understanding of the two different requirements was that one was:
>> - "Alignement with widely deployed standards", which includes XML, but 
>> not RDF at this stage; and which may include non-W3C standards. That CSF 
>> is certainly related to the goal of widespread adoption. It is not 
>> necessarily related to the goal of W3C consistency, but it might be 
>> considered as supporting it;
> 
> Why should this not include RDF?  Isn't RDF a "widely-deployed standard"?  

+1

XML is no doubt more widely adopted than RDF but this separation of 
"supports" links is not appropriate and was not discussed in those terms 
at the f2f.

DavidH's suggestion of merging them would be the easiest solution for 
this working draft.

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2006 11:30:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:29 GMT