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

Re: RDF Schema work-in-progress, URL

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:07:47 -0400
Message-ID: <3BB09DC3.6FECB185@mitre.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I don't have a strong opinion about whether the RDFS spec should
maintain its present form or not, but I don't think I agree with the
idea that the spec should be nothing more than 3 or so pages of terms
and rules, with all the explanatory material pushed off into the
primer.  I expect a primer on a language to be be a source of
explanatory material on that language, but not to be the *only* source
of explanatory material (and I would expect a primer to go about its job
of explaining things differently than a specification would in any
case).  There is room for argument about examples being part of a
language specification or not (I tend to favor them), but I expect the
spec by itself to be a reasonable description of the language for those
who are intended to be its likely users.  If the prose is too "fluffy",
let's unfluff it, not eliminate it entirely.  


Dan Connolly wrote:
> Anyway... I don't think the RDFS spec should maintain its
> present form. I suggest it should be about 3 pages:
> just give each of the terms in the vocabulary and
> the rules (ala the MT spec) that define them.
> Leave all the examples and fluffy prose to the primer(s).

Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 11:08:22 UTC

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