W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Documents, Cars, Hills, and Valleys

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 05:33:25 -0400 (EDT)
To: RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0204300521410.22139-100000@tux.w3.org>

[snip]

OK, time out!

This thread has gone on plenty long enough for my taste.  How about we try
to give it some focus and closure. In particular, I think we should try to
focus on:

 - proposing textual revisions to specs (RDF MT, RDF syntax, URI -
   RFC2396, RDF Schema)

 - comparing implementation behaviour (pointers to code, tools etc)
   using concrete fully worked out test cases (instance data plus schema)

It's an interesting topic, I could just see the thread continuing on for
eternity without hope of resolution unless we try to achieve something
specific. We seem to revisit this theme periodically. I don't want to be
reading "What's the URI for a person" threads here in 5 years time! Which
means figuring out ways of agreeing, of agreeing to disagree, and agreeing
how our disagreements manifest themselves in the understanding of RDF/XML
documents.

I would like to see specific RDF/XML test case documents used as the focal
point of debate, and specific real world applications (digital library
systems, end user interfaces, queries) that illustrate the problem. If
there's a problem, let's try to pin it down to specific examples. This
means that when people write sample fragments of data, they should
probably take care to spell out the associated schema definitions
(rdfs:label/comment prose) for classes and properties used, rather than
assume the meaning is clear from the property etc names.

Anyone else want to try wrapping this up?

Dan


-- 
mailto:danbri@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 05:33:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:53 GMT