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

Re: Is this really it? (was: I18N response draft3)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:36:09 +0100
Message-ID: <3F780B19.2080506@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org



I agree that these are possible weaknesses, I think the schedule issue is 
an important one. Please suggest improvements - possibly to do with use of 
this document, and a separate rebuttal that consists of
a) the blow-by-blow account I added in today's draft
b) discussion of wider issues such as schedule and no compelling reason for 
delay

Jeremy

Graham Klyne wrote:

> Concerning:
> 
> [1]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0259.html
> [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/att-0259/i18n-part.html 
> 
> 
> I'd like to record my unease over the general approach of this argument 
> [2], to the extent that (a) it doesn't entirely reflect what I felt was 
> the WG's reason for sticking with the current design, and (b) the 
> coverage of design alternatives discussed is possibly spurious or 
> incomplete.
> 
> My apologies for not chiming in with this sooner, but the first time I 
> read a draft of this text I found myself feeling uneasy and confused 
> without any real focus for such feelings.
> 
> My perception is that we chose to stick with the current design because:
> (a) the desire for "seamless" evolution from plain to XML literals was 
> articulated very late in the day, and had not previously been part of 
> our design goals,
> (b) a more complete treatment of this desideratum would require 
> extensive changes to many of the documents at a very late stage in the 
> overall process at a time when the group really needs to complete its 
> work quickly if it is to deliver value to the community,
> (c) we do not feel we have been presented with a sufficiently compelling 
> argument that the current design is broken in any fundamental or fatal 
> way, and
> (d) we have been trying to minimize dependence on XML of the core design 
> of RDF (other than the XML serialization syntax).
> 
> The draft justification [2] dwells very much on details of specific 
> design choices we might have made, which I do not feel fully captures 
> the true situation.  In short, I perceive our position is:
> - we really, really need to finish soon;
> - the current design is not fatally flawed;
> - to find an alternative acceptable design will cause a major delay.
> 
> As it stands, the draft seems to consist almost entirely of details that 
> justify the final point above.
> 
> I'm not claiming that anything in Jeremy's draft [2] is wrong.  If my 
> perception is not matched by others in the WG, and folks feel this 
> really does fully capture the group's position, then I am content to let 
> it stand (having hereby had my day in court, so to speak).
> 
> #g
> -- 
> 
> At 15:17 26/09/03 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
>> I made some minor changes, in particular dropping the very limited 
>> discussion
>> I had of two designs as not worth the space.
>>
>> Also added link to the legacy message of earlier
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0249
>>
>> Jeremy
> 
> 
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> GK@NineByNine.org
> 
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 06:37:14 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 29 September 2003 06:37:19 EDT