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

Re: SYNTAX: RDF/XML Syntax WD work

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:31:17 +0100
To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20414.1003336277@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Art Barstow said:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 05:00:12PM +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
<snip/>

> 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.

It would need more than that.  There are issues with WG decisions to
change, not change, issues not considered.  WG decisions have words.
The action is the action that was beholden on this document in order
to address the issue.  I think all the WG decisions are recorded as
such.  The WG may decide that the actions I give are suitable to
address the issue in which case a "On date, the WG decided
URI-of-action addressed the issue" text could be added.

[RelaxNG inclusion gone, see other reply]

<snip/>

> 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?

I'm going to try careful prose and n-triples, see how it goes.  I
suggested to Jeremy to maybe include the snail rules work (non-XSLT
part) in a separate section and ask for implementor feedback.  My
worry is slight disconnect between stream of sax events and the
actual ntriples out, using Jeremys approach.  On the other hand,
gives very precise, complete, coherent answers which my prose may
not, which was the main problem we were addressing with a new syntax
formalism.

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 12:31:18 EDT

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