RE: Syntax Proposal [All] $swbp

I agree with everything Jeremy said (modulo my poorly worded
suggestion). The open question was whether to require  RDF/XML syntax
SOMEWHERE in every formal note, not whether it needs to be in an
appendix. An appendix is the obvious place to put examples in RDF/XML
syntax, if they are not in the main content sections.

It is a separate matter what conventions to adopt regarding appendices
per se. For example, one reasonable convention would be to require all
coded examples to be either/both in an appendix, online and
downloadable. This relates to the idea of having a common
template/format for notes -- which we have agreed to let various ideas
be put forward rather than adopt a normative template/format at this


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Carroll [] 
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 1:58 AM
To: Uschold, Michael F
Cc: DLU BPD (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Syntax Proposal [All] $swbp

Uschold, Michael F wrote:
> *	should we make it a requirement that, say all notes at least 
         have RDF/XML in an appendix? -or-
> *	should this be entirely up to the author's discression?  

I believe that a statement of general policy, with extensive discretion,

is the best way forward. This allows any reviewer who cares to easily 
challenge author discretion when it goes against the main thrust of the 
policy. Otherwise we need to over-engineer the letter of the policy, 
rather than gradually come to a shared understanding of the spirit

(e.g. I think having examples in Turtle and RDF/XML, in-line, like in 
the OWL Test Cases, fits the spirit, without fitting the letter of 
Mike's proposal - I don't think this is worth discussing except on a 
case-by-case basis)


Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 11:32:02 UTC