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

Re: On the elegance of P/P+

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:55:41 +0200
To: ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B864C98D.B7E3%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-01-11 16:21, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

>> Although it is agreed that support for the P+ idiom is beyond
>> the scope of our charter (presumably ;-) I have found the
>> elegance of the combination of P and P+ to be difficult to
>> dismiss, and wonder if we might not consider bending the charter
>> regarding the single point of P+ support.
> 
> I find the pictures very compelling, but nevertheless oppose this.
> The problem is the knock on impact.
> This is not just bending our charter, it's driving a coach-and-horses
> through it - in that the syntactic changes in RDF/XML that will be
> required
> are, (guessing) quite substantial; creating a significant backward
> compatibility issue.
> 
> I think the PD proposal has nearly as much elegance, and certainly would
> permit a later migration to P+, while being probably the most in-charter
> proposal on the table.

Your points are well taken, and I feel a small bit of
shame for my radical suggestion, but the elegance of
P/P+ is hard not to become infatuated with, and we
all know how infatuation can cloud judgement...  ;-)

I agree that P/D is the next best thing, given the
constraints of the charter.

I guess P/P+ must wait for RDF 2.0 or the like.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 09:55:14 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:54 EDT