- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:28:57 -0500
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
+0
I'm not going to stand in the way but I wouldn't at all blame the
commenter for rejecting the response on the grounds that an abstract
syntax in set notation like:
[[
[24] Graph ::= Set(Triple)
[25] Triple ::= (Subject, Predicate, Object)
]]
implies no more syntax than does the text in Concepts:
[[
3. RDF Graphs
An RDF graph is a set of RDF triples.
3.1 Triples
An RDF triple consists of three components:
the subject, which is an IRI or a blank node
the predicate, which is an IRI
the object, which is an IRI, a literal or a blank node
An RDF triple is conventionally written in the order subject,
predicate, object.
]]
The commenter suggested BNF while set notation would be more
appropriate, but I think the only reasons we can't meet the
suggestions are that
1. We don't have time.
2. Some WG members don't see a value in an abstract syntax.
* Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> [2013-12-13 14:31+0100]
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
-ericP
office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 17:29:38 UTC