- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:50:48 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Dave Reynolds wrote: > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >>> >>> My understanding of the two different requirements was that one was: >>> - "Alignement with widely deployed standards", which includes XML, >>> but not RDF at this stage; and which may include non-W3C standards. >>> That CSF is certainly related to the goal of widespread adoption. It >>> is not necessarily related to the goal of W3C consistency, but it >>> might be considered as supporting it; >> >> Why should this not include RDF? Isn't RDF a "widely-deployed >> standard"? > > +1 > > XML is no doubt more widely adopted than RDF Yes, although this is only incidental to the point I wanted to make, which is that there are two different CSF, one being alignement with relevant standards, whether or not they are semantic web standards, W3C standards or whatever; and the other one being alignement with the Semantic Web (which includes alignement with the semantic Web standards). The CSF of alignement with the relevant standards supports the goal of widespread adoption, especially so if the said relevant standards are widely adopted themselves; but it does not necessarily support W3C consistency, because the relevant standards are not necessarily W3C standards. On the other hand, the CSF of SemWeb alignement certainly supports the goal of W3C consistency, whereas how much it supports the goal of widespread adoption is dependent on SemWeb adoption. I never meant to imply that RDF was not a key W3C standard or anything like that (actually, I did not even think that this could be read in what I wrote :-) > but this separation of > "supports" links is not appropriate and was not discussed in those terms > at the f2f. We did not discuss CSF and how they relate to goals and requirements at the F2F. We agreed on 2 goals and on a number of requirements, but CSF were discussed only incidentally. If the alignement CSF and how they link are the only one that appear problementic at this stage, maybe we could decide and settle that during the telecon (Peter will not be there, though). Christian
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2006 14:51:06 UTC