W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

LC Issue timbl-01 choices

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 14:12:28 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <13322.1049202748@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


timbl-01 is about the first question Tim raised in
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0226.html
about the use of bagID, we had some discussion of it last week but
didn't reach a conclusion or discuss in the last telcon.  


The first question in the email is:
  "Is this feature then worth implementing? What does the group think?"

We know bagID it isn't used, and probably could be killed if we
didn't feel such a change was rather late and/or constrained by
charter.  If we wanted however that would mean new last call
documents for RDF/XML Syntax and Primer - removing things.  In this
case the answer would be:

  No and we accept your comment. We will remove bagID from the
  language and WDs.  This substantial change will mean preparing a
  new set of last call documents.


The alternative is to reject this.  I don't see the point of
postponing this any further, we didn't remove it, wrote test cases
for it and people implemented it.  So the answer to this question is:

   Yes and we reject your comment that it is not worth implementing.
   Several others have implemented it in the RDF/XML->RDF graph
   mapping from the current round of specifications such as rdflib,
   Drive, SWI-Prolog, Sesame parser, ARP and raptor.


So hopefully, can we pick one of these by the next telcon Friday?

Brian: please put this on the agenda.


The second part of the above email is about timbl-02

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 08:12:55 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:49 EDT