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

Re: Draft Partitioning

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:49:00 -0700
Message-ID: <3B2A9EEC.32A22424@db.stanford.edu>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
IMO reification has a chance to be introduced as a pure model feature
not intrinsically bound to any vocabulary (see
In this perspective, it would not go under 'vocabularies'. Similarly,
namespaces and literals are another two model features that might go
into one of the layers in the 'core'.


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.
> 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?
> 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 19:36:05 UTC

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