W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2001

Re: EARL: Simple Sample

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:39:26 -0000
Message-ID: <01b301c096f8$9ddaec80$bf6c073e@z5n9x1>
To: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
> The trick is in understanding the culture involved in drawing out
> literate graphs made up of well-modulated primitives that, like
> the Dublin Core, encourage reuse.

We already have a nice set of well-modulated primitives through EDL and
EARL evolution. In this way, the vocabulary is evolving similar to that of
DC, but I envisage that the syntax won't do. Dublin Core syntax doesn't
exist: it's just a base element set with no structural definition. EARL on
the other hand is not just a core vocabulary, but a means of processing
that on non-RDF parsers as well. The EARL framework is a subset of RDF, not
an RDF langauge. We already have syntax rules: e.g. "the subject of a
triple where the predicate is earl:asserts is always an earl:Validator".
Why have these rules? Because RDF is so unconstraining. There are hundreds
of ways to make the same assertion, but with a few simple EARL rules
involving a use of the core vocabulary, we can come up with simple,
effective, modularized systems that can be groked, and yet extended at
will. In other words, any langauge that is a subset of RDF can use RDF
parsers, even if it does not allow certain features of RDF. If you allow in
*new* features, then you lose that, and that is what we must avoid.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 21:38:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:32 UTC