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

Re: Outline for new RDF document

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:25:56 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626152036.020d6198@15.144.25.13>
To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 10:56 24/06/2002 -0500, Eric Miller wrote:

[...]


>I think this distinction will be lost on those outside of this group
>trying to get their heads around RDF.  Often times what people are
>trying to say helps determine use. I'm concerned that splitting this
>notion over 2 documents may be seen as more confusing than helpful.

Eric,

My interpretation of the discussion and decision from the face to face was 
that the WG felt there were a number of things without a proper home, e.g. 
the graph syntax definition.  I confess I've felt for some time that the 
asymetry of having a schema spec, but nothing similar for the rdf model 
indicated a problem.

The decision we made, as I recall it, was to sketch out the contents of a 
document to describe the, oh I want to use the term "model", but Pat will 
jump on me if I do and I don't have a better word for it yet, but I hope 
you know what I mean.  The idea in my mind is that we look at that plan and 
see if it makes sense.

Another option we rejected was to combine this document with the schema 
spec, an option we might reconsider when we see the contents.

We were aware of the impact this might have on the schedule when we 
discussed this.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 10:26:43 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:24 EDT