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

RE: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine readable content

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:23:27 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192A87@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'TAG'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hi David,

I was working on this late last week. Unfortunately didn't get it out before
the weekend, but have just posted something on www-tag (it was mentioned in
last weeks minutes and there seems to have been some interest in the topic).

At most I think what I've being doing would be a proof-of-concept (wrt RDF
rather than Xlink (or aswell as!) in RDDL).

The RDDL venture started outside the TAG and the TAG charter places a strong
emphasis on Architectural recommendations rather than the development of
technolgy specifications.

<charter>
Architectural Recommendations
The primary activity of the TAG is to develop Architectural Recommendations.
An Architectural Recommendation is one whose primary purpose is to set forth
fundamental principles that should be adhered to by all Web components.
Other groups within W3C may include cross-technology building blocks as part
of their deliverables, but the TAG's primary role is to document
cross-technology principles. 
</charter>

So... it's not clear to me that the TAG is the right place to 'bake' a
specification for a namespace document.

Any thoughts?

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: 06 April 2002 02:08
> To: 'TAG'
> Subject: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine readable content
> 
> 
> As a result of last weeks telcon, Stuart took an action to write up some
> more work on namespace document.  There was much discussion on how machine
> readable information should be represented.  It's obvious that we should
be
> able to compare different styles of syntax before making any kind of
> determination.  We already have RDDL in xlink syntax.  I think others(SW?)
> are working on an RDF syntax for RDDL, and that would be great to see.
> 
> We will have to think of some criteria for determination, like human
> understandability, machine understandability, etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 17:29:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT