W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: RDF-ISSUE-176: CR comment: BNF expression of RDF Concepts [RDF Concepts]

From: Schreiber, A.T. <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:17:29 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9973E1FC-538F-4034-B830-0622BB706D9F@vu.nl>
In the interest of time: you should now feel free to send.
Guus




> Op 13 dec. 2013 om 17:05 heeft "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> +1
> 
> Ivan
> 
>> On 13 Dec 2013, at 14:31 , Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> here's the proposed response for ISSUE-176.
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C 
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 16:18:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC