W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Strawman RDFCore Documents structure

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@baltimore.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:44:47 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010831144410.0328d560@joy.songbird.com>
To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I agree with Frank's comments.

#g
--

At 01:00 PM 8/14/01 -0400, Frank Manola wrote:
>I think this represents a reasonable starting point for structuring the
>material, provided we don't take the descriptions too literally.  That
>is, I think we can use this as defining rough targets for the different
>types of material we need to produce, and in the case of the Overview a
>rough length target, so we can think about actually writing.  However, I
>don't know that I'd want to spend a whole lot of time discussing much
>greater detail about the documents, because I often find that when I
>actually start to see the material my ideas about how much is needed,
>and how to organize it, change.
>
>A couple of additional comments:
>
>1.  I suspect many of the page estimates are too low.
>
>2.  I'm suspicious of *too much* separation of explanatory material
>("Tutorial") from the specification of the RDF model and RDF Schema.
>This is one place where I'd want to actually be looking at some
>material, in order to decide whether the specification was actually
>going to get across to people or not.  While I appreciate the desire to
>avoid mixing normative and non-normative material (as well as the desire
>to avoid confusing people with too many detailed examples), nevertheless
>we need to shoot for specifications that our target audience can
>actually read and understand.  (For example, a potential "explanatory"
>section of the specifications that might be very useful, based on the
>history of our WG discussions, would be a section whose title was
>something like "virtual specifications: things you may be reading into
>the specifications, but that aren't actually there.")  Also, I wouldn't
>think that having a "tutorial" would necessarily rule out having
>explanatory material in the specifications themselves;  I generally
>think of a "tutorial" as having a different approach than a
>"specification", even when the "specification" contains a lot of
>explanatory material. Perhaps a thorough cross-referencing scheme
>between the two "kinds" of documents would alleviate many of the
>potential difficulties.
>
>--Frank
>
>Brian McBride wrote:
> >
> > I had an action from the face to face to propose a structure for the 
> documents
> > the WG is to produce.  Below is a strawman for discussion.
> >
>snip
> >
> > Documents
> > =========
> >
> > Overview
> > --------
> >
> > Purpose:  High level introduction to RDF and guide to other documents.
> >           All that a manager needs to read to understand broadly what
> >           RDF is trying to do without getting into how it does it.
> >           Answers questions like "What is RDF?", "What would my
> >           organisation use it for?", "Where does it fit into the
> >           family of XML, metadata and semantic web specifications?",
> >           "What do I read next?" and "What is defined and how can
> >            it be extended?".
> >
> > Audience: Everyone with any interest in RDF.  This is the  first document
> >           a newbie reads.  It's the only document someone needing only
> >           a high level view of what RDF is and what its for should need
> >           to read.
> >
> > Size:     2-3 printed pages
> >
> > Status:   Non-normative
> >
> > Style:    Short, concise, readable.
> >
> > Tutorial
> > --------
> >
> > Purpose:  A tutorial introduction and explanation of the RDF 
> specifications.
> >
> > Audience: The primary target audience for this document is the book author.
> >           The main goal of this document is to make the specifications
> >           accessible to the book writing community, so that they can fill
> >           in the gaps and write complete tutorials in their books.
> >
> >           This document will also be used by those who eschew the books and
> >           and want to figure stuff out for themselves from the
> >           specifications.
> >
> > Coverage: Sections covering all aspects of the RDF specs including the
> >           abstract model, the RDF/XML syntax, RDF Schema and basic
> >           vocabularies such as reification and containers.
> >
> > size:     approx 20-30 printed pages
> >
> > style:    explanatory
> >
> > status:   non-normative
> >
> > RDF Model
> > ---------
> >
> > purpose:  Formal specification of the RDF abstract model.
> >
> > audience: Higher layer designers, tool builders, authors
> >
> > coverage: Graph model, n-triple representation, model theory,
> >           n-triple formal grammar as non-normative appendix
> >
> > size:     < 10 printed pages
> >
> > style:    Formal
> >
> > status:   normative
> >
> > RDF Schema
> > ----------
> >
> > purpose:  Formal specification of RDF Schema
> >
> > audience: Higher layer designers, tool builders, authors
> >
> > coverage: type, Class, etc and their model theory
> >           Vocabularies - reification and containers and their model theory
> >           XML Schema data types
> >           links to test cases
> >
> > size:     < 20 pages
> >
> > style:    formal spec, no explanatory material
> >
> > status:   normative
> >
> > RDF/XML Syntax
> > --------------
> >
> > purpose:  Formal specification of the RDF/XML grammar and its
> >           transformation to a graph.
> >
> > audience: Higher layer designers, tool builders and authors
> >
> > coverage: relationship to XML, grammar, transform to graph,
> >           links to test cases
> >
> > size:     < 10 pages
> >
> > style:    formal spec, no explanatory material
> >
> > status:   normative
> >
> > Test Cases
> > ----------
> >
> > purpose:  Machine executable illustrative test cases which illustrate
> >           various aspects of the specifiations.  Not exhaustive.  Not
> >           a validation test suite.  Explanatory examples.
> >
> > audience: All except managers
> >
> > coverage: everything
> >
> > size:     ?
> >
> > style:    machine executable with comments
> >
> > status:   normative  (@@??)
>
>--
>Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
>202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
>mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                 <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended 
for the addressee(s) only.  If you have received this message in error or 
there are any problems please notify the originator immediately.  The 
unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is 
strictly forbidden. Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, 
special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the 
contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being 
passed on.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by 
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.
Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 11:58:00 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:50 EDT