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

Re: (tentative) container model proposal

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:12:02 +0100 (BST)
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
cc: "Ora.Lassila" <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>, guha <guha@alpiri.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0106131506000.27373-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> Ora.Lassila@nokia.com <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not against anyone inventing new schemes, just that there ought to be one
> > that's "preferred" to ensure some baseline interoperability. I do not believe
> > that just having triples and nothing else constitutes interoperability.
>
> Interoperability is Hard Work. We can only bring people so far and
> encouraging them to use our container scheme is not one of the places I want
> to go. Build translation rules instead.

This is one situation where the backwards-compatibility issue Ron raises
is very pertinent. People are using containers already - reorganising
the RDF documents (and our mindsets) into "layers" is a great idea*, but
containers must stay. It may be hard work (I wasn't expecting a
cakewalk) but suddenly producing a normative document that says "there
is no core definition of what the RDF you've been using means" is
ridiculous. It doesn't do anyone any good.

jan

* as in, anything that eases the clarification and understanding of RDF
by the world at large has got to be a good thing.


-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Prolog in JavaScript: http://tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/~cmjg/logic/prolog-latest
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 10:13:56 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:06 EDT