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

Re: refactoring RDF/XML Syntax

From: Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:54:57 -0400
Message-Id: <200110161554.LAA02967@tux.w3.org>
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Brian, I've to interject for a clarification here. Deletion of containers in the last Syntax draft 
has frankly left me rather indifferent, because this is just a change in a specific version of a
syntax: you're not changing *the* RDF foundation, which is the model.
And this is/was consistent with the charter of the RDF Core wg, i.e.
<quote from="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter">
The RDF Core WG is neither chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the RDF 
model. However, the group is expected to re-articulate the RDF model and syntax specification in such 
a way as to better facilitate future work on alternative XML encodings for RDF.
Which translated is: no big harm, free to clarify and tweak, but not to change the foundations.

But the last thread has left me rather baffled:
The working group has made the following claricications so far with respect to

    o it has removed redundancy in the grammar, as you commented above.

    o it has decided that partial descriptions of containers are legal

    o it has removed containers from the formal model section of the RDF model

Although the "Refactoring RDF/XML Syntax" is kinda stretching the charter, it's doing
exactly what the title says: tweaking the RDF *syntax*: so, stretching but probably 
fine wrt the charter, as that's only a syntax after all; some people can complain
about this stretching, others (including myself) are not concerned, as tweaking the syntax doesn't
touch the foundations, and goes correctly into the way the charter suggests: improve alternative 
XML encodings for RDF.

But the moment you're touching heavily the model, like you say in the last line, I don't understand
the mission of Core any more, as you're modifying the RDF foundations. 
And even, later in your reply you say
The WG has not completed considering containers.  There are no plans at present
to drop them from the specification.  Note that other specifications make use of
them (CC/PP), which would make removing them, shall we say, controversial.
which seems in fact to be in accordance to the charter (but, apparently contradicting
your last bullet above).

Can you/somebody cast some light :) ?
-Massimo (awakened from that third bullet)
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 11:54:57 UTC

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