- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 13:36:16 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:40 07/05/2003 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >So I'm confused. > >Are we all agreed that the only reason to keep the rdf:type rdf:List >triples would be if webont needed them? I'm not currently aware of any other. >DanC: the cost of updating the Owl specs to not require the extra type >triples is 'considerable'. > >PatH: It bet its not. > >Jos: we can easily add/remove them as needed, so add them when needed. > >Jeremy: we can easily add/remove them as needed. Its more aesthetic to >remove them when not. > >So:------------ > >PatH - you bet its trivial to change Owl not to need them - can you >propose specific text for the change? > >Question: Which Owl needs them? > >The purpose of a specification is to enable the development of maximally >interoperable implementations. Personally, I don't understand why we have >to be so dogmatic about whether these triples are generated by a parser or >not. Can't we just encourage developers to offer control over whether or >not they are produced? Tim gets what he needs - no generation of >unnecessary triples. Pfps gets what he wants - no change. I think that we need to be dogmatic to the extent that (a) the syntax specification states what (minimum) triples are generated from some RDF/XML input, and (b) the semantics specification states what a collection of triples means, such that taken together they give a complete account of what some given RDF/XML means as RDF(S). Beyond that, and here I think I agree with you, I think it's up to layered specifications to "condition" the RDF graph in any way they may need to ensure that the layered semantics work out as desired. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 09:34:00 UTC