W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2005

[XSCH] new editors draft

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:55:22 +0000
Message-ID: <42322FEA.90306@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>


Hi

I have updated the editors' draft at:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/

changes are marked with a %%


integrating

Pat Hayes,
Dave Peterson
written comments

Michael Sperberg-McQueen
verbal comments

and adding acknowledgements section (identifying Evan as 'author' of 
section 5, and mentioning reviewers)

Also two blocks at Guus suggestion labelled 'EDITOR'S OPINION' where I 
state my preferred solutions to the two issues

Still to do are:
- integrate Ralph Swick's comments which are on paper (which I hope to 
do on Tuesday)
- for Jeff to respond to the 'EDITOR'S OPINION' section, and to agree to 
other changes I've made

Jeff:
I am hoping that you can suggest any of the following on each EDITOR'S 
OPINION block:

1) change, perhaps with minor rewording to 'EDITORS' OPINION' and put 
both our names on it
2) add a second different EDITOR'S OPINION block with your name on it
3) no change (i.e. you don't offer a different opinion but you don't 
endorse mine)

The goal is to stimulate public discussion, i.e. this is what Jeremy 
and/or Jeff will argue for: if you don't like it best to say so now.

I believe the format makes it clear that this is a personal and not a WG 
view.

FWIW here are my two opinions:
     EDITOR'S OPINION: My preference is a position combining aspects of 
all three solutions which is to use @id where possible, and once XSCD 
goes to Rec to also use that, particularly for XML Schema that are not 
under the control of the RDF or OWL author. Jeremy Carroll

     EDITOR'S OPINION: My preference is to use XPath eq despite it not 
being an equivalence relation. I think the advantage of compatibility 
with XPath and SPARQL. I hope that the implementation problems are 
resolvable. Jeremy Carroll


Sorry Evan this is not ready in time, since there are still a few 
changes to go, and I suspect I should review the changed text over the 
weekend too.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 11 March 2005 23:55:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:07 UTC