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

Re: Structuring the problem space

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:43:28 -0400 (EDT)
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106132223030.22624-100000@tux.w3.org>

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Brian McBride wrote:

> If you know of a previously posted suggestion for a partitioning, or have
> one you'd like to propose, please can post (a pointer to) it to the list.

Last september (seems so long ago!) Leigh Dodd's wrote a nice piece on
xml.com summarising some of the discussions at the time, particularly
w.r.t. the (then new) issue list and my strawman 'model only' document.
This might be a useful backgrounder for any partitioning discussion,
particularly for WG members who didn't follow www-rdf-interest back
then...

	xml.com "Super Model"
	http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/09/20/rdf/index.html

	[[
		The RDF Interest Group has recently been gathering
		momentum, and the XML-Deviant takes a look at the progress
		they're making towards improving understanding of RDF.
	]]


re-reading http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0074.html
and nearby, I'm rather happy with the progress we're making, when compared
to the uncertainty of last september.

The "model only" document that I prototyped (via crude hacking of the M+S
spec document) is IMHO a reminder of the potential for simplicity:

From my original posting,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0072.html
[[
	BTW, after I took scissors to the M+S spec, this is what happened to the
	filesize:
	 rdfmodel]$ ls -l Overview.html OriginalREC.html
	 -rw-rw-r--    1 danbri   www        138906 Sep  8 07:45 OriginalREC.html
	 -rw-rw-r--    1 danbri   www         28204 Sep  8 09:45 Overview.html
]]


I don't want to slip into a premature discussion regarding partitioning
the _specs_;  I think you're right to encourage a discussion of problem space
partitioning first. I do think though that there is value in having a
description of the RDF 'formal model' (aka 'abstract syntax' etc) in
isolation both from any  specific XML encoding and any specific set of RDF
properties and classes.

--danbri
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 22:43:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:08 EDT