W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Species Validation and at Risk Feature

From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:02:54 +0100
Message-ID: <3F7946BE.2010506@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Jim Hendler wrote:
> 
> At 10:08 AM +0100 9/26/03, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
> 
>> Jim Hendler wrote:
>>
>>>  As reported in a previous email, the MINDSWAP group has implemented 
>>> a complete species validator that passes all tests. However, we were 
>>> not able to work out the details of the so-called "B1,B2" feature 
>>> just from the WG documents (and the we here includes me, Bijan and a 
>>> programmer) -- however, Sean B's document [1] gave us the missing 
>>> information we needed.  I would therefore like to suggest that we 
>>> find a way to include some or all of Sean's in our recommendation 
>>> track documents somewhere or, if we decide we want to include 
>>> something like this whole document, consider making it available and 
>>> citable in our documents.
>>>   One possibility is that if Sean is willing to "finish" this, we 
>>> could release it as a Working Group Note (like we did with the XML 
>>> syntax) -- I think this would be a very valuable document and would 
>>> make me a lot more sanguine if we go to PR without dropping the 
>>> structure sharing stuff (to put it another way - with Sean's document 
>>> available, I find B1/B2 to be implementable - without it, I question 
>>> whether we actually provide enough information for non-WG members to 
>>> implement it)
>>
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> This depends partly on what you consider "finished" to mean. I 
>> produced the document in question partly to assist me in the process 
>> of building the parser/validator and partly in response to a request 
>> from the WG. In terms of a *rough* description of how one might build 
>> a parser/validator, I'd consider it pretty much finished.
>>
>> However, there are a number of quite crucial aspects that it doesn't 
>> address -- for example how one handles anonymous individuals and 
>> individual facts concerning them. Producing a document that really 
>> covers this in detail (and making sure it was right) would be probably 
>> just as much work again.
>>
>> My initial inclination is not to pursue this right now -- in some ways 
>> building the RDF parser was for me a "necessary evil" :-) which then 
>> allowed me to do some other stuff, rather than it being a core 
>> activity.  However, if it's considered to be *really* important, then 
>> I might be persuaded. Of course if the current document is considered 
>> sufficient, then I'm more than happy to do some simple tidying up and 
>> for it to be included in other stuff/published as working note/nailed 
>> to the door of the kirk etc...
> 
> 
> I was thinking that the current document could be cleaned up, reviewed 
> by the WG, and released as a Working Group Note -- this would give it 
> some status, make it easy for implementors to find, but not make it part 
> of our recommendation - I think that would be a good status for it, and 
> it would complement our document set.  it would be made very clear that 
> this is an informative and incomplete document -- title could be 
> something like "HInts for Implementors ...." or something like that

Ok. This sounds like a sensible idea.

	Sean

-- 
Sean Bechhofer
seanb@cs.man.ac.uk
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 05:04:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT