W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Draft RDFCore comments on web architecture document

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:23:27 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040318151850.027d2fb8@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

I approve in principle, and I think I approve in detail.

My slight uncertainty stems from not being sure if the points to which you 
draw particular attention adequately cover the issues of reference and 
denotation that (I think) lay at the heart of the debate between Pat and 
TimBL (cited in my comments).  I think your first such point:
[[
   - having a clear vocabulary and meaning for fundamentatal notions such 
as resource, representation, naming, identifying etc.
]]
could reasonably be construed as covering this.  If there is no further 
comment about this forthcoming, I suggest accepting your proposed text as 
it stands.

#g
--

At 13:31 18/03/04 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:

>Here is a strawman formal comment from RDFCore to the TAG concerning 
>the  architecture document last call.
>
>I would like to decide by email that the WG approves sending this. 
>Accordingly, I will send it on behalf of the WG if I hear sufficient 
>specific endorsement and have no unresolved objections by Tues 23 Mar 2004.
>
>Brian
>
>
>===========
>
>RDFCore would like to congratulate the TAG for making an excellent start 
>on documenting the principles that govern the design of the architecture 
>of the web.  We also recognise the great difficulty of the task the TAG 
>has taken on.
>
>In response to the call for review of [1], several members of the RDFCore 
>WG have submitted many detailed comments on the document [2][3] [4] which 
>we hope the TAG will find useful.  We are confident the TAG will give due 
>consideration to each comment on its merits with or without specific 
>endorsement by the RDFCore WG.  RDFCore requests, however, that the tag 
>pay particular attention to comments that relate to:
>
>   - having a clear vocabulary and meaning for fundamentatal notions such 
> as resource, representation, naming, identifying etc.
>   - interpretation and use of fragment identifiers
>   - notions of authority and ownership of URIs and resources
>
>We trust that the citation of the RDF Model and Syntax specification be 
>replaced with a citation of the new RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax 
>document [5] in due course.
>
>Brian McBride (co-chair)
>On behalf of the RDFCore WG
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/
>[2] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/0024.html
>[3] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1053.html
>[4] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1057.html
>[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 10:28:21 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thursday, 18 March 2004 10:28:24 EST