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

RE: Minutes: Syntax subgroup teleconf - Oct 26, 2001

From: Bill de hOra <bdehora@interx.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:31:57 -0000
To: "W3C Rdfcore" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004d01c16389$9a9797e0$01000001@MITCHUM>

I agree with the subgroup's decision to mandate 'structured English'.
That's with my implementers hat on. 

But YMMV, depending on what one means or is happy by 'structured

I'd be fine with Jeremy's work, except it's XSLT ;) More seriously, one
has to know/have XSLT to build an RDF parser? I suppose it is good for

> Aaron:
> I'd recommend the WG take a different course of action: Use 
> Jeremy's work as the normative version, and have Dave Beckett 
> work on an English version for possible inclusion in the Primer.

Formal is good; but with accompanying text please. Arguing that existing
RDF parsing texts are unacceptable shouldn't imply not having any.
Parsing material is best self contained, so please don't smear it across
specs. I also observe that XSLT is ultimately defined in 'structured
English' as is any machine processable format we're likely to use. It
seems we just need to work on the 'structured English' until it's
structured enough. So, if Dave's English is difficult to read, we need
to help him with it ;)


bdehora at interx.com 
Received on Friday, 2 November 2001 05:35:11 UTC

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