- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:20:40 +0100
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 20:16 16/04/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: >On 2002-04-16 20:03, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > > At 16:33 15/04/2002 -0400, Pat Hayes wrote: > > [...] > > > >> I don't want to be a party-pooper, but I honestly feel that having an MT > >> and sticking to it is one way to get past this kind of half-formalized > >> (and rather confusing) kind of discussion. I do not know what these > >> 'levels' are supposed to be, or how to recognize them, or how to evaluate > >> talk about them, etc. etc. . Why not stick to the syntax and the MT, and > >> just talk about that? Then everything is clear. What an application wants > >> to do with an RDF graph is up to it, not up to us. All we can do is to > >> provide application writers with a gold standard for meanings, and leave > >> other 'layers' to them. > > > > I agree. > >That's a pity, because there are lots of users of RDF who can't >read or understand the MT. So... > >There are many different kinds of "customers" who will read the >RDF Datatyping specification, and we need to be sure that it is >clear and approachable -- and ultimately *usable* -- to them all. Yes, I think I am persuaded of that. The trick might be to have a clear distinction between the formal specs and more tutorial oriented text. Brian
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 12:22:59 UTC