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

Re: Draft Partitioning

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:30:19 -0500
Message-ID: <3B2A543B.AD7D4772@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> 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!

I have long since come to regret the choice of the term "model"
in the RDF specs.

How about the term we already have: Framework, i.e.
for the abstract syntax and its semantics:


	Resource Description Framework (RDF).

Following on that...


> > RDFSchema: Schema as currently conceived.
> >
> > Vocabularies (aka standard library): Reification and containers

	Describing Classes and Properties in the Resource Description Framework
(RDF)
	Containers for the Resource Description Framework (RDF)
	Reflection in the  Resource Description Framework (RDF)

(is "reflection" ala Java reflection less scary than reification?
Is it a misnomer?)


> > RDF/XML: Syntax considerations only.

	An XML Syntax for the Resource Description Framework (RDF)
or
	Writing Resource Descriptions in XML


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

Surely everybody is invited to draft stuff, right?
i.e. nobody has any "write lock"s at this point, do they?

I'm especially interested to see tutorial/primer stuff.

> > 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.

At this point, it doesn't look like a question of group resources
per se; drafting is more of an individual thing. I intend
to try to draft some stuff; if it works out, I'll propose
it to the group. If I run into too many open issues, I
can just tell the group that.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 14:31:24 EDT

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