- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:05:11 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 13-12-13 14:31, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > Hi all, > > here's the proposed response for ISSUE-176. +1 > > > Dear Richard, > > Thank you again for you comment on the RDF 1.1 Concepts document, recorded > by the RDF WG as ISSUE-177. > > 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 > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 14:05:43 UTC