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

Re: SYNTAX: RDF/XML Syntax WD work

From: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:01:00 -0400
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20011017090100.B30442@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 05:00:12PM +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
>   http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

Very nice Dave!  I just have a few comments from version 1.69.

> These are strawman answers, where there are any, and my intention is
> that if you have better / other words, put them in your email reply.

WRT the issues in Appendix A, some issues that have not had
a WG decision have an Action that implies (to me) a WG decision 
has been made (e.g. rdfms-replace-value).  I realize you consider 
this your "strawman" but all WG memebers should realize that the 
doc implies more decisions have been made than really have.

Instead of Action, perhaps it would be useful to use Status
and then to assign a status value such as: Decided - Change,
Decided - No Change, Undecided (instead of '?').  In the case 
where a decision was made, supporting text would be added.

> I have also added the RelaxNG schema into an appendix and I want to
> also add Jeremy's XSLT mapping to the document.  

As I've stated before I like the apparent simplicity and clarity
of the RelaxNG non-XML schema.  I do wonder, however, how we verify
this schema or any other schemas that may be added to Appendix D 
(the document says XML Schema and Schematron are TODOs).  It seems
like the schemas in Appendix D should explicitly state whether or 
not they are normative.  Also, do we really need to provide more
than one schema; what about just pointing to the work of James and 
Rick instead of including their work in the document?

> Please comment on
> structure too; should the section 3 issues move to an appendix also,
> or a later section?  Should appendix A, B go entirely?
> 
> Next, I am going to work on section 4, try to write down the mappings
> to N-Triples, 

Since a lot of the text in section 6 of the M&S specifies 
triple creations, it seems like extreme care will be needed to
assure all of the relevant text in that section is transfered to
the new doc.  Also, what do you expect to document wrt triple
generation versus what do you expect to get from the Snail work?
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 09:01:07 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:05 EDT