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

Re: Outstanding Issues - an RDF statement is an assertion

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:19:25 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 07:40 AM 2/20/02 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
>"For information about" is fine;  but the outline suggests that the 
>document is doing more than that (like explaining what the "abouts" 
>are).  As far as being normative vs. non-normative, if the document is 
>"guidance" or "explanation" rather than "specification", it's not clear 
>why it needs to be normative (what is it defining "norms" about?).  It may 
>well be that the Primer is mis-named, but that might be more due to the 
>content than its status;  and I'm mainly commenting on the degree to which 
>the contents may overlap.

An example of the kind of "master specification" I mean is RFC 2305 [1] 
(which has nothing to do with RDF or the Web, but illustrates my thought).

It's 13 pages long, of which just over 3 are the specification 
content.  The specification content effectively says a number of things on 
the lines of "for <this> function, use <this> specification", with just 
enough additional material to fit the pieces together.

(I now see my previous description "for information about" wasn't quite right.)

Keeping the content short is one way to avoid overlap.

As for drafting this, I would take a stab if I were confident that it might 
be useful to the group, but I'm really not keen on putting time into it if 
nobody wants it.


[1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2305.txt

Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 09:24:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC