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.  

--Frank


Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
snip
> 
> 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 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:49 EDT