W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Two questions about bagid

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:27:23 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030214131501.02efd098@localhost>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Dear Developer,

I'm following up on this from a process perspective.  In my initial 
response I forgot to ask whether that response resolved your comment.

We've had some offlist discussion from which I think I've learnt that I 
might reinterpret your question as:

   Should the syntax that triggers generatation of reified statements, i.e. 
rdf:bagID and some instances of rdf:ID be removed from the specification.

Would that be a fair characterization?

My quick response to this question is that the WG was chartered to clarify 
M&S.  It wasn't chartered to remove bits of the syntax (though it has done 
so in other instance where clarification was difficult).

The WG might have been more willing to consider this question if it had 
been brought up earlier, but we are now in last call so it is more 
difficult to make such changes.  As I noted earlier, there are now several 
implementations of the features you suggest be removed.

I doubt you will find this response satisfies you, but my question to you 
is whether you are persuaded to withdraw the comment or whether you would 
like this comment recorded and considered by the WG.

Brian



At 09:35 12/02/2003 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:

>This response is to "a developer" the signature on the original posting.
>
>At 14:15 11/02/2003 -0800, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>
>>I have a question about implementation of the bagid feature.
>>My parser doesn't currently implement it, and so  fails the RDF
>>tests which involve it.   The same seems to apply to Ids on
>
>
>[...]
>
>>Is this feature then worth implementing? What does the group think?
>
>In an ideal world the answer is "no".  There are several parsers, for 
>different languages, that pass all the WG testcases.  Have you considered 
>integrating one of those rather than building your own?
>
>If you really need to build your own, the answer in general is yes, if you 
>want to be sure of interoperating with other implementations.
>
>Brian
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 08:26:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT