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

Re: Draft Partitioning

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106151313030.25647-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Brian McBride wrote:

> I took an action to draft a partioning of our problem space.
> RDFCore: A base abstract syntax and a semantics for it.  The abstract syntax
> is equivalent to n-triple (can n-triple be that abstract syntax).  Nothing
> more - does not include type, containers, reification.

Yep. I'd be inclined to call it RDFModel, to avoid confusion with the WG
name. I hope we don't come to regret the choice of name for this group!

> RDFSchema: Schema as currently conceived.
> Vocabularies (aka standard library): Reification and containers
> RDF/XML: Syntax considerations only.  Defines the language using some
> suitable mechanism (not necessarily BNF) and defines (formally?)
> a transform from RDF/XML to n-triple.
> With RDFCore, Eric's suggestion to set a goal of having draft document
> to discuss at the face to face is an excellent one.
> With an eye on the calendar, would it be possible to move forward on
> any of the other areas in parallel?
> DanBri - do you think that progress can be made on schema, or is it
> too dependent on the core?

I'd love to get an RDFCore-branded revision to the RDF Schema document
underway, since we have some known fixes floating around. We made RDF
Schema pretty independent of the RDF Syntax; and I hope there aren't many
points where RDFCore issues mean we can't progress Schema. The only things
that come to mind is the use of rdf:ID and worries about the use of '#'.
But those dependencies shouldn't paralyse us from making progress.

While our understanding of the best spec partitioning may evolve, I would
like to have go-ahead from the group to churn out another revision of RDFS
for consideration by the group. I could certainly get RDFS back on track
for internal-to-working-group publication before the face to face; whether
we want a proper W3C Tech report publication prior to face to face I
don't know.

How about I try to get something done for working-group eyes pre-f2f and
we see how it looks?


> On the syntax front, would it be possible to investigate how best to
> specify the language and its transformation to n-triple?
> On the vocabularies front, can we make progress with reification based
> on Frank's questions or should we wait till the core is further along.
> Brian
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 13:22:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:49 UTC