RE: on Extending and Versioning draft findings

Hello Dan, 

> I note "It is heavily XML schema based, but only because of 
> scheduling.
> OWL/RDF and RelaxNG sections wil be added" which makes me 
> think perhaps I should have waited until those sections were 
> added to commit to a review. But pressing on...

I'm wonder whether the application of E&V principles to OWL/RDF falls
within the scope of the Semantic Web Best Practices WG.

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: 24 January 2005 17:31
> To: David Orchard; Norman Walsh
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: on Extending and Versioning draft findings
> 
> 
> On the way back from Helsinki, I looked at...
> 
>  [Editorial Draft] Extending and Versioning XML Languages 
> Part 1  Draft TAG Finding 24 November 2004
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/v
> ersioning-part1.html
> 
> I'm still not sure what the scope of the finding is trying to 
> be; the title suggests XML languages, but then I read:
> 
>   This finding describes techniques to achieve more effective loose
>   coupling between systems by providing a means for backwards-
>   and forwards-compatible changes to occur when systems evolve.
> 
> 
> The core definition seems to be
> 
>  [Definition: Extensible if instances of the language can 
> include terms from other vocabularies.]
> 
> but I'm having trouble understanding it. "other vocabularies" 
> suggests that each language has one vocabulary. The UML 
> diagram (if I read it correctly) says that the relationship 
> of languages to vocabularies is 1 to many. I don't understand 
> what "other vocabularies" means in that case.
> 
> Perhaps the core definition is
> 
>  [Definition: A language change is backwards compatible if 
> newer processors can process all instances of the old language. ]
> 
> I infer that processor is a synonym for 'receiver', though I 
> wonder why other synonyms were identified and that one was not. Hmm...
> the text actually defines the terms 'producer' and 'consumer'.
> I'm getting confused. And it's not clear to me that cat(1) is 
> not a receiver for all languages, and hence all language 
> changes are backwards compatible.
> 
> 
> Maybe these definitions aren't supposed to be the main focus 
> of this draft, but they're right there at the start, without 
> any motivating examples to study first. If the definitions 
> aren't supposed to be central, please move them to a less 
> central position in the draft; an "in progress" appending or 
> some such.
> 
> 
> Regarding...
>   [Editorial Draft] Extending and Versioning XML Languages Part 2:
> Schema Languages
>   Draft TAG Finding 24 November 2004
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Nov/att-0071/v
> ersioning-part2.html
> 
> I note "It is heavily XML schema based, but only because of 
> scheduling.
> OWL/RDF and RelaxNG sections wil be added" which makes me 
> think perhaps I should have waited until those sections were 
> added to commit to a review. But pressing on...
> 
> "Re-use namespace names Rule: If a backwards compatible 
> change can be made to a specification, then the old namespace 
> name SHOULD be used in conjunction with XML_s extensibility model"
> 
> That GPN should say "if you're constrained to use XML Schema..." yes?
> 
> And what does "XML_s extensibility model" refer to? Maybe I'm 
> reading too fast?
> 
> 
> 
> for reference:
> 
> ACTION DC: to review parts 1 and 2 of extensibility and 
> versioning editorial draft finding 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/01/10-tag-summary.html
> 
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 18:12:35 UTC