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

Re: SYNTAX: RDF/XML Syntax WD work

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:55:05 +0100
Message-ID: <3BCE98E9.E8196FD6@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Hi Dave 

With the danger of rushing in before you've reached anything like a
stable point ...

I have had a look at version 1.88 and I am decidedly nervous about the
direction you're going with the triple production stuff.

I fear you're heading for a rerun of M&S section 6 with:
+ too many words
+ that are self-contradictory 
+ too unclear

I am also less than taken with the view that the text describing the
production should be associated with a particular processing model. 

For instance in the subsection "Production node" you say 

       The following processing is performed before handling any
propertyEltList children and in this order.

That is presumably intended in an abstract processing model. 
It is in my view, perfectly legal to process the property attribtues
after the property elements, and the resulting n-triple file is an
acceptable rendition of the RDF/XML.

I would go further and say that the property attributes and property
elements can be processed in any order with the single exception that
rdf:li is converted into rdf:_NNN in document order.

I also dislike the "in this order" part since many of the steps you then
list are, in fact, interchangeable.

I fear we have a stylistic clash brewing.

I feel that it is better if a specification does not over-specify by
indicating superfluous things; whereas you appear to want a
specification that would have helped you write the particular
implementation of RDF/XML that you have in mind. 

I do not feel that it is the job of a specification to assist a parser
writer. The job of a specification is to specify what needs specifying
(and no more or less). If at any point there is a conflict between the
task of assisting the reader in their task (e.g. writing a parser), and
the principle aim of specifying I am clear that the reader should be
left to seek assistance elsewhere. The reader should expect clarity from
a spec, if they want a howto then they may need a different document.

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2001 04:50:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:52 UTC