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

Fw: [closed] xmlsch-10 canonical syntax

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:19:46 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20031006121946.7b98e200.dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

This 'formal dissent' from the XML Schema WG amounts to objecting to RDF
Core's charter which is a document from March 2001 and we didn't ask
them for a review of it.

I think that this thus makes their original comment (xmlsch-10) and
reply out of scope and not thus this isn't a last call issue.  Or if it
is, our response to the director is "out of scope, objects to the WG charter"

Either way, I can't see what to say to them now.


------- Forwarded Message

Date: 03 Oct 2003 22:21:47 +0200
From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C XML Schema IG <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: [closed] xmlsch-10 canonical syntax


thank you for your response to our comment.  A full account
of our formal responses to your responses is attached to
For the sake of those who are trying to track this particular issue
using the email archives, our response on this topic is given 

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
 for the XML Schema WG

On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 21:03, Dave Beckett wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
> The RDF Core WG has considered your last call comment captured in
>     http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10
> (raised in section
>   "4.4. Normative specification of XML grammar (policy, substantive)" of
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html )
> and decided
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0361.html
> to postpone it.
> A canonical subset of RDF/XML was considered by the RDF Core WG.
> However the WG believes that due to the way mixed namespaces are used
> in RDF/XML it is not possible to define such a subset that:
>   a) can represent all the RDF graphs that RDF/XML can represent
>   b) can be described by an DTD or an XML Schema.
> An alternative would be to define a new syntax that is describable
> with a DTD or an XML Schema but doing so is beyond the scope of RDF
> Core's current charter.  We note that the XHTML WG have expressed
> interest in working on such a syntax and have been encouraged to do
> so by RDF Core.  RDF Core also welcomes XML Schema's offer to help
> with this work.
> We will add this issue to the RDFCore postponed issues list at:
>    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf
> Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating
> whether this decision is acceptable.
> Thanks
> Dave

We realize that this is a difficult area, but we believe that it would
be  a  mistake  for  W3C to move forward with a new version of the RDF
specifications  without  undertaking  the  work  of  a revision of the

We  regret  that we must dissent formally from your resolution of this
issue.  The  current mismatch between RDF syntax and off-the-shelf XML
tools  has  not  become  easier to bear as time goes on; we believe it
must be addressed.

------- End of Forwarded Message
Received on Monday, 6 October 2003 07:24:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:08 UTC