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

Re: Outline for new RDF document

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:36:59 -0400
Message-ID: <3D17126B.5050404@mitre.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Jeremy--

I don't necessarily have any objections to what you propose, but it 
would help a lot if you could consider what is now in the Primer, or 
already targeted for the Primer, and suggest how you think these 
proposals ought to affect the Primer, when considering these things. 
For example:

a.  the Primer already has text on containers
b.  the Primer already has a fair bit of text on schema
c.  the Primer already has a section (yet to be filled in) on reification
d.  the WG said it wanted something in the Primer to explain rdf:value

I'm starting to "lose state" as to how this new document and the Primer 
relate to each other.  In any event, let's try to address potential 
overlap up front.

--Frank

PS:  Just to head off this answer, I don't think a idea like "the new 
document has informal but normative text while the Primer has 
non-normative text" is a reasonable distinction to make if there is 
going to be a lot of overlap in the coverage of the two documents, since 
that would leave us with a given issue being covered by text that is 
[formal,normative], [informal,normative], and [informal,non-normative], 
which sounds a tad dangerous.  I thought the reason why people wanted 
the Primer to be non-normative in the first place was because the text 
was informal.


Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 
> I have been reviewing M&S to see which parts of it are:
> - not currently in any of our new specs
> - have not been decided to be dropped
> 
> These sections appear to be candidates for inclusion in the new top-level
> document, fulfilling its dustbin role.
> 
> The main content is to do with vocabulary, particularly:
> - containers
> - reification
> - rdf:value
> 
> I understand that we are maintaining M&S containers but without formal
> semantic support and hence somewhere we need informal but normative text
> corresponding to para 90.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#90
> 
> I understand that we are maintaining reification but clarifying it as
> supporting the provenance use case (and hence 'stating' rather than
> 'statement'). As such text corresponding to M&S section 4 is needed - (all
> subject to complete rewrite).
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#higherorder
> 
> I do not understand what we are doing with rdf:value, but there is a lot of
> legacy which is based on stuff written in M&S and we should, IMO, carry some
> of that text forward even if we deprecate it.
> e.g. show some of the use cases.
> 
> 
> While this stuff might belong in the schema specification, the current
> schema draft appears to want to be very conservative and not suggest
> semantics that are not in the model theory.
> e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_containervocab
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value
> 
> Assuming that we do want to carry such intent from M&S forward, and that the
> new document is the right home for that intent, then Graham and I were
> thinking of putting it within the document structure as follows (section 5):
> 
> 1. Introduction
> 2. RDF overview
> * as before *
> 3. RDF specification
> 3.1 - 3.4
> 3.5 RDF vocabulary definitions
> 3.5.1 RDF defined vocabulary terms
> pointer to section 5
> 3.6 RDF datatyping
> 3.7 Test cases
> 3.8 Primer
> 4. RDF Graphs
> * text more or less as already suggested
> on formal definition of RDF graph *
> 5. Informal Semantics of Some RDF Vocabulary
> 5.1 Containers
> 5.2 Reification
> 5.3 rdf:value
> 6. Additional technical considerations
> 6.1 Internationalization
> 6.2 Character normalization
> 6.3 Conformance
> 6.4 RDF in HTML
> 7. Acknowledgments
> 8. References
> 
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 08:28:39 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:21 EDT