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

Re: Proposed response for timbl-02 (reification semantics)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 13:41:15 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030409132713.03ac77d8@localhost>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Graham,

This looks fine, with a couple of caveats.

I note from Tim

[[
As Director, I wonder about whether the group can claim this part of
the spec to have reached its implementation requirement,
if the parsers parse the information but the semantics have not been
field tested.
]]

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0137.html

We had three folks say at the telecon that they used reification as 
defined.  Mike has written his up.  I recall that Patrick and Frank were 
the others.  We also have the p3p rdf schema.  I suggest we also ask 
Patrick and Frank to say document their use cases on the record so we can 
point to them from the WG response.

Patrick, Frank - you ok with that?

That would still leaves Tim's point

[[
(Remember the story of the man who wrote make(1) and a few
days later realized that the tab/space distinction in the Makefile
syntax was a mess, but didn't like to change it because by that time
several of his colleagues were using the syntax?)
]]

which I read as saying that for the long term good of the semantic web we 
should ignore the short term pain.  Tim will have the option of coming back 
and saying that, but we will at least have differentiated between there 
being no use (which is what I think Tim might believe) and not enough use.

Also, I think we agreed to put health warnings on semantics and schema so 
that folks were aware of what reification isn't appropriate for.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 08:40:25 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:54 EDT