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

Re: Overview and Abstract Data Model - new document

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 06:40:10 +0200
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MABBLGKMPIJFCKFGDBEPIEAACBAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Dave question normative nature of CHARMOD ref.

My analysis is as follows:

1: section 3 had normative dependencies by mistake.
   The intent, not properly wordsmithed, is that the references to CHARMOD
and XML Schema concerning RDF Literals are informative rather than
normative. I will correct.

2: Section 4.1 on early uniform normalization

http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-07-25/Overview.htm#xtocid48034

does normatively depend on charmod.

I added this as part of what I understood as the deal with the I18N WG from
the Cannes plenary. My view is:
- if charmod has sufficiently progressed down the rec track at last call
than we leave 4.1 and the normative ref
- if charmod has not, we excise section 4.1 and move the ref to informative

The motivation for this view is that of the many things required for full
charmod conformance, early uniform normalization is: (a) has the biggest
practical impact and (b) is explicitly mentioned in M&S. Hence I think, if
at all appropriate, we should clarify M&S and make it easy for RDF2 to be
fully charmod conformant. However, given the rules of not having normative
dependencies on non-recs, and given the implausibility of in-lining the
concept, if I18N have not got their act together sufficiently then we have
to (reluctantly?) drop it.



====

Summary:

propose to leave the normative dependency in this WD and revisit shortly
before last call.

add editorial note to document at section 4.1 to that effect.

Jeremy
Received on Saturday, 27 July 2002 00:34:19 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:53 EDT