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

Re: comments on concepts doc

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:27:48 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029092157.02708ee0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 09:27 29/10/2002 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>Brian
>
>I hope that Graham and I will be able to work out a detailed response soon -
>however I wanted to make a high level comment, partly because I feel
>relatively neutral and can see both sides of a philosophical disagreement.
>
>Back in July
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0081.html
>we had extended e-mail and telecon time on this document, with the main
>contention being its scope and purpose.
>
>Some of Graham's original hopes were scaled back, but I don't think your
>puritanism (which I could support) was endorsed by the WG.

I have given up on getting the kind of minimalist specs I would 
prefer.  However there is a matter of degree.

[...]

>I believe that Graham and I should look at whether your comments can help us
>reduce duplication, but I do not believe that the WG wants the normative
>documents to be anoerexic; and I will be very surprised if we accept all of
>your comments.

So will I.


>Personally I would support an editorial style across our normative Recs
>which said that discursive and non-normative material is, where possible,
>omitted. This would impact all the specs except for vocabulary, and maybe
>test cases. I think syntax would be approx halved, concepts possibly more
>serverely, the model theory would be somewhat thinned - the proposed lbase
>appendix would be aborted. I doubt that such a policy would get wg support,
>not least because too many of the WG are editors who would lose some of the
>text with which they intend to educate the world. A further problem with
>such a policy is that at least parts of our discursive material (such as the
>introductory parts of the model theory) have been very well received. (In
>fact, if we were to have such a policy, I would hope an exception would be
>made for that part of the model theory).

I'm not looking for such a policy.  I have come to accept some discursive 
material.  It is the quality of that material that is now my concern.


>I might need to consult with the ink and toner divisions before casting HP's
>vote for such a policy.
>
>As always, there is time pressure; and given that we haven't had such a
>policy as clear in advance I think it is unrealistic to expect the next
>batch of WD to follow it.

I don't.  I'm highlighting these issues now so the editors have a sense of 
the scale of work required to get to last call.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 04:25:16 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:32 EDT