W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: refactoring RDF/XML Syntax

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:53:24 -0700
To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>, "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@theburningbird.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NJEFJIDDCFKNOFNEADKHOEACCEAA.shelleyp@burningbird.net>
I've chatted with Brian McBride on this issue, and also checked out the
clarification on containers using the formal grammar (container vs typed
nodes). I have no problem with understanding that containers are redundant
and that the same data can be recorded using a typed node.

Still, if the concept of a "container" is eliminated, wouldn't this be a
change to the specification? Even as a clarification? I realize that the
syntax is, itself, backwards compatible -- but a change in understanding is
still a change to the specification.

Will the clarification of the concept of "containers" be included in a new
release of the specification? Or as some form of an addendum, or something
along these lines?

Do you see a M & S 1.1 in the next year?

Thx

Shelley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:aswartz@upclink.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 10:15 AM
> To: Shelley Powers
> Cc: shelleyp@burningbird.net; www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: refactoring RDF/XML Syntax
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2001, at 12:53  PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't the process of updating or modifying a released
> > specification be to start a
> > new release version of the specification? In other words, since
> > the RDF Model and
> > Syntax are currently a W3C initial recommendation, wouldn't new
> > effort that actually
> > makes modification to this specification be release 1.1, or
> > even perhaps 2.0? This
> > isn't errata -- this effort is a redesign of parts of the
> > specification.
>
> Hmm, the working group has tried to be very careful in making
> sure that the modifications to the specification be in the
> spirit of backwards compatibility and clarification. We're
> trying not to cause problems for anyone using RDF 1.0 tools.
>
> Can you point to a specific item that you think is more of a
> change to the RDF specification than a clarification? What's
> causing problems for you?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 00:53:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:16 UTC