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

RE: Syntax WD - thumbs down

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:43:02 +0100
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Brian has asked me to clarify what the minimum change would be to get me to
drop opposition.

In particular, he hypothesised a paragraph that clearly stated that sections
4-9 took precendence over section 2, in the event of a conflict.

This would just about suffice to turn my opposition into abstention - not
that I cannot understand why the editor objects to using a single word like
"informative" or "non-normative" in place of such a paragraph. (Grudging)

I reemphasize that a decision to retain section 2, in any form, should not
be taken unless the WG is clear that the necessary rewrite for last call and
recommendation is adequately resourced; and has sufficient bang for the

I could positively support publication with:
- section 2 deleted
- section 2 moved to a non-normative appendix


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: 31 October 2002 10:44
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Syntax WD - thumbs down
> This is the summary report of my review of the editor's draft of
> the Syntax
> doc (revision 1.350).
> The WG should not publish this document.
> The editor has refused to address my main point.
> Hence I propose that the WG:
> - actions the editor to delete section 2 "An XML syntax for RDF"
> (approx 10
> pages)
> - publish the WD subject to this and other editorial changes at editor's
> discretion
> ===
> I would hope that any opposition to this proposal would come from
> people who
> have read section 2. I would hope that any opposition took account of the
> large number of very substantial editorial changes proposed by myself and
> Brian (I reattach my review copy, the previous version missed two
> </span>'s).
> In particular if this proposal is rejected I would expect that that means
> that a majority of the WG believe that, in the time available,
> section 2 can
> be made into something that will help the reader of the document
> understand
> the substantive content (in sections 5 - 9).
> Moreover, the degree of this help must justify the length of the section.
> ===
> I have previously indicated a willingness to compromise on having the
> section clearly labelled as informative.
> If there is a majority in the WG who, having reviewed the section, believe
> this compromise is workable, then I suggest that:
> - the section should be moved to being a non-normative appendix
> - that the appendix be on a separate html page in a compound document
> Moreover, I think that to make it a contribution to the community's
> understanding of RDF/XML rather than an obstacle there is still a
> substantial amount of editorial work to do - in terms of making the
> descriptions clear, correct and concise; and in relating these
> descriptions
> to the substantive section (particularly the productions in
> section 7). The
> quantity of this editorial work, and the shortness of time in which to do
> it, suggests that the document needs an additional editor, who I would
> expect to emerge from the majority who felt that these examples were worth
> the effort. I would hope that such an editor would make efforts to use
> declarative descriptions of the examples, rather than the procedural
> descriptions that Dave has used.
> <<aside:
> The deletion of the italian
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar">
> <dc:description xml:lang="it">Il Pagio di Web Fuba</dc:description>
> should be required in any case.
> It is inappropriately (and untruthfully) boastful (approx: "The
> coolest web
> page")
> >>
> ===
> I feel that the best way forward is:
> - acceptance of my proposed resolution above
> - if the editor believes it is necessary to give examples of use of each
> production, that such examples should be added to the test cases.
> - in section 7, after each production, a link to the relavant example is
> given.
> If WG thinks Dave's section 2 could be a contribution to the community, he
> should be encouraged to work on the many editorial comments he has already
> received, and publish it through some refereed channel - like - if he were
> quick - he could submit it for consideration for WWW2003; more
> realistically
> maybe ISWC2003
> ===
> I regret that I will be unable to attend the telecon tomorrow, I trust the
> chair will represent my position.
> ===
> There are other points, the important ones Dave has already accepted.
> A technical issue that we have not discussed is XML validation, which can
> change the infoset over which the grammar operates. I suggest we
> should have
> telecon time on this topic after publication - I could prepare some test
> cases.
> Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 07:43:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:01 UTC