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

Re: Proposal: RDF Processor definition

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:03:55 +0100
Message-ID: <3BA2003B.2B38F422@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: dehora@acm.org
CC: RDFCore <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Hi Bill,

dehora wrote:


> Issue:
> RDF M&S does not prescribe a processing model. However there are
> infrequent references made to and constraints made over, RDF
> processors*. This can be deemed something of a hedge, while
> acknowledging the intent that RDF is to manipulated by machines.

This seems like an editorial comment on the M&S text, yes?


> Proposal:
> choose option 2 and subedit the current M&S to replace some uses of the
> word 'application' with 'RDF Processor'. Add the definition:
> RDF Processor:
> Software which operates over RDF at a syntax level. Examples of RDF
> Processors are parsers, validators, transformers and (de)serializers;
> typically software that prepares or manipulates RDF on behalf of other
> applications. The RDF Model and Syntax specification does not define a
> processing model for RDF, but does make reference to such processors and
> their expected behaviour in certain circumstances.

Having an entry in the glossay seems like a good idea, though I personally
haven't tended to think of RDF processsors as being confined to operating
at the syntax level.  Did you have a specific syntax in mind?

I'm not sure that modifying the M&S text is that useful until 
we get to drafting the whatever replaces the model bits of M&S.
I suggest that I add this to the list of editorial comments on M&S and
we can then deal with it at the appropriate time.  Does that work for you?

Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 09:09:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:51 UTC