W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: new document comments

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:23:49 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020802115252.0437e8f0@127.0.0.1>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Dave,

Short response:

(a) you are picking up on points I've already agreed to change but which 
aren't reflected in the document.

(The document revision you cite is not intended to be a candidate for 
review since it can change at any time, and as such is not a version that 
has been lodged in www-archive.  Apart from a slip in the initial 
announcement, I've tried to cite only stable document revisions.)

(b) There is an issue in contention concerning which I've already asked for 
wider WG input.

Details below...

At 09:30 AM 8/2/02 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
>Changes I still want to see in the new document (assuming the other
>accepted things are folded in, such as title change etc.)
>
>
>I didn't get closure with Graham on changes to the following
>two things (Jeremy - what are your comments?)
>
>[[
>2.2.4 XML-based syntax
>
>RDF has an XML-based serialization form which, if used appropriately,
>allows a wide range of "ordinary" XML data to be interpreted as RDF
>[STRIPEDRDF].
>]]
>-- http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm#xtocid48012
>    Revision 1.27  2002/07/29 13:21:36  graham
>
>Still bogus - 'appropriately', 'ordinary' and citing the wrong thing.
>
>If you want to have give some personal design advice or experience on
>creating RDF/XML syntax profiles, put that a document of your own,
>not a 'concepts and abstract data model' WG document.
>
>The striped syntax document does not describe the XML syntax in
>a normative way.  Remove this.
>
>I suggest:
>
>   RDF has a recommended XML serialization form which can be used
>   to encode the data model[RDF-SYNTAX].
>
>which doesn't include the IMHO too value-laden words you had.

I've already accepted the principle of changing this text, which isn't 
currently reflected in the document revision you cite, and asked for wider 
WG input on the matter of mentioning the striped syntax.
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0196.html

My case is this:

I think the striped syntax and RDF-as-XML are worth mentioning, because in 
my perception and experience they represent a strong rationale for the XML 
serialization syntax being the way it is.  This is based on my RDF learning 
experience with CC/PP:  simply stating the various allowed forms of RDF 
syntax left me confused, but recognizing the way they reflect some common 
XML usage it was much easier to understand.  If others don't agree with my 
perception then I'll pull the material, but currently this is running at 
the level of a personal disagreement which I don't think is grounds to make 
the change.

>[[
>    2.4.3 XML serialization syntax
>
>    RDF has a specific serialization syntax based on XML. There are
>    several ways in which a given RDF graph can be represented in XML:
>    these various forms allow RDF to be represented in ways that are
>    amenable to specific XML applications. In this way, XML
>    application data can easily be designed to be accessible to
>    generic RDF processors [XML-AS-RDF].
>
>]]
>-- http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm#xtocid48023
>    Revision 1.27  2002/07/29 13:21:36  graham
>
>Here we go again with promoting profiles of the XML syntax and citing
>a draft ID document you wrote instead of the recommended syntax and
>WD which isn't cited until 5 paragraphs later in 2.5
>
>I want to see just syntax wd cited here since, again, that's what
>this section is about.  Your personal work may be interesting, but
>promoting the latter above the recommended syntax isn't useful to
>people looking for definitive pointers.

Again, I've already agreed to add the syntax citation here and look for an 
alternative more widely recognized example to cite, which isn't currently 
reflected in the document version you are referencing.

Here's the alternative reference I propose:
   RDF Site Summary (RSS) 1.0
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/files/specification.html
(In many ways, I think that's a superior example, because it illustrates 
the evolution of an XML-based format to the wider, more expressive world of 
RDF metadata - 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/files/specification.html#s2 - and it 
illustrates very simply that adopting RDF need not be a painful exercise.)

This appears in a sub-section headed "Concepts", and I think this is a 
useful concept to mention.  Again, if the group thinks it's inappropriate, 
I'll pull the material.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 07:44:38 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:23 EDT