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

RE: review comments on rdf-syntax-grammar (version of 25 Mar)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@HPLB.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:58:10 -0000
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDMEHOCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> > Why is the MT spec not a normative reference, while the (broken old) M+S
> > spec is normative? Should implementors code to M+S or new MT's
> notion of the
> > graph? Presumably the latter, since we talk of bNodes etc.
> >
> > Is the lack of a normative ref caution stemming from the fact
> that the MT
> > includes stuff like RDFS closure rules, and we don't want to give
> > impresssion that syntax can't be implemented without that stuff? (eg.
> > see our exchange earlier re my idea for using subPropertyOf to serialise
> > XML-unfriendly predicates).
>
> That's the general reason.
>
> > .. It should somehow be possible to make
> > normative ref from syntax to MT without parsers having to have inference
> > engines, shouldn't it? (for some sense of 'normative reference').
>
> I guess.
>
> I was wondering about a specific conformance statement something like:
>
>   [[To implement this specification requires reading and understanding:
>
>     XML, XML-NS, Infoset, XML Base, RFC 2396 (URIs), RFC 3023 (XML
>     Media Types), RDF Test Cases
>   ]]
>
> and for understanding the specification, also RFC 2119 (KEYWORDS).
> Maybe Model Theory could be in another related list.
>


I think it is useful to have a clear distinction between necessary and
interesting references.
In this light I agree with Dave's original judgment that MT is interesting
but not necessary for syntax.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 04:59:41 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:22 EDT