Re: What does it mean to “implement RDF” or “conform to RDF”?

Hi Eric,

On 12 May 2012, at 13:57, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> I'm not sure all of this defines "conformance". In fact, it was my
> impression that specs which define a language which does something
> (e.g. SPARQL maps RDF graphs and queries to solution sets) have
> conformance criteria while languages whichs simply are (XML, RDF,
> Turtle) don't benefit from expressing a notion of conformance.

I find this distinction rather strange. Languages don't “do something”. Agents do. And surely, the XML and Turtle specs need to explain how to “do something”: mapping certain kinds of strings to, respectively, XML infosets or RDF graphs.

My understanding is that a recommendation-track W3C specification without conformance clause violates W3C's normative QA Guidelines:
http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#specifying-conformance

Personally I find the W3C QA Guidelines very well thought out and compelling.

Best,
Richard

Received on Saturday, 12 May 2012 17:05:03 UTC