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

Re: LC Issue timbl-01 choices

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 Apr 2003 08:45:22 -0600
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1049208321.23299.57.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 07:12, Dave Beckett wrote:
> 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.

The charter constraint didn't seem to bother us that
much in the case of aboutEach and such. (though
there was some action to check with the SemWeb CG
whether it was OK, and I'm not sure what, if anything,
ever became of that.)

>   If we wanted however that would mean new last call
> documents for RDF/XML Syntax and Primer - removing things.

How do you come to that conclusion?

The only way to find out for sure that you need another
last call is to ask to proceed to the next step and
get turned down.

I suggest that removing it in the course of moving
to CR/PR would be welcomed by reviewers and implementors.

There's an argument to be made that a last call is in
order so that anybody who's using it has a chance
to say "hey! I wanted that! put it back!" But it's
not a black-and-white issue. If, as you say, we
know bagID isn't used, then there's little reason
to do a last call.

>   In this
> case the answer would be:
> 
>   No and we accept your comment. We will remove bagID from the
>   language and WDs.

I think you can stop there.

>   This substantial change will mean preparing a
>   new set of last call documents.

That question seems separable.

Or perhaps you're saying that it's your considered
opinion that the WG should do another last call if
it removes bagID?


> 
> 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.

Yes, the implementors understand and were convinced that it's
worth implementing.

I think TimBL has raised an interesting question as to whether
the users understand what they're saying when they use this
construct.


>   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
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 09:45:19 EST

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