Re: Draft Partitioning - Summing up

On Thursday, June 21, 2001, at 02:14  PM, Brian McBride wrote:

> There seems to unanimity in the responses for a partition of the
> technical issues into:
>
>   o an abstract syntax and semantics (previously called core)
>   o schema
>   o vocabularies
>   o RDF/XML syntax

For the record, my proposal did not include a distinction 
between schema and vocabularies. However, I would not be against 
it as long as there is a clear semantic distinction about the 
contents of each.

> I suggest that there is enough agreement around this broad 
> partitioning,
> that with the specific proviso that we remain open minded for 
> the moment
> about where reification, type and class belong, that we can start to
> move forward with each partition in parallel.

I'm not sure what you mean by "moving forward". I'm all happy to 
move forward, and as quickly as possible, but I do not thing it 
is a good idea to begin writing/designing these parts without 
resolving the extremely important issues that will have major 
effects on them. I don't want to get into a situation where 
we've built an abstract syntax with literals and then we decide 
that they're really "data:" URIs.

So let's resolve these issues, please.

--
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]