Re: BNF expression of RDF Concepts (ISSUE-176)


Yes I'm happy with this response.

Best wishes,


On 13/12/2013 16:50, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> Dear Richard,
> Thank you again for you comment on the RDF 1.1 Concepts document, recorded
> by the RDF WG as ISSUE-176.
> You noticed that the document does not include a BNF representation of the
> concepts which characterize an RDF graph and suggested that adding one would
> be helpful to developers as it would introduce standard naming conventions.
> The working group has decided to not include a BNF representation into RDF
> 1.1 Concepts for a number of reasons. Most importantly, RDF 1.1 Concepts
> tries to clearly separate between the abstract syntax (data model) it
> describes and concrete syntaxes defined in other documents. We believe that
> the addition of BNF to the document would blur that line and confuse readers
> (as it has been the case in the past where RDF/XML was often conflated with
> RDF's data model).
> RDF Concepts already normatively defines all important concepts and
> highlights those definitions visually. Redefining them in BNF would require
> to connect the BNF symbols to the corresponding concepts. Most of these
> symbols would therefore differ only in the capitalization and whitespace and
> thus be of limited practical value. On the other hand, naming symbols which
> have no corresponding concept defined in the current document (e.g.,
> literals which are not language-tagged strings) is, as past discussions have
> shown, likely to be very time consuming. Unfortunately, there's only very
> little time left given that WG is nearing the end of its chartered life.
> Please reply to this message and let us know whether this is an adequate
> response to your comments.
> Thanks,
> Markus
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> .

*Richard Light*

Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 17:16:28 UTC