- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:08:58 -0600
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 05:09:28PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy muttered something about: > > This is RDF :-) it may not always be a URI. Only a property has that feature. > Anything else would imply some higher level constraint, including not a bNode. Of course it may not always be a URI. In the cases where it is, I was wondering whether it would be good to know that. > > Schema support is overrated, IMO. Especially in such a simple format. > > Could you say more as to why it is overrated? Well, as I understand it, the 'best practices' advice from the XML developer community is that XML schema validation is often unnecessary, sometimes doesn't do what people really need to do, and is usually a small part of a larger set of problems. Personally, I think the onus should be on form2 supporters to say what validation offers in this case. > Schema validation is something people do so that is a reason for form 2. Eh, it's not a very good reason. > needs to be a counter argument for format 1 where it is, by design, not XML > Schema-able. (The same debate has been had about RDF/XML.) I thought we'd already judged there to be more support for the schema-less version in this WG than for the schema-able version? I don't want to argue about who bears the burden of proof here; I'd be happy to standardize both forms. But, frankly, your having asked some folks at HP doesn't convince me. ;> Kendall -- You're one in a million You've got to burn to shine
Received on Friday, 26 November 2004 21:09:19 UTC