Re: rdf accommodation

/ Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net> was heard to say:
| I re-read the Xproc WG charter and it plainly defines the scope as
| "XML processing".  But the wording leads me to believe RDF was omitted
| accidentally, not excluded deliberately.  I wasn't there, so I don't
| know.

To the extent that RDF/XML is XML, it's not omitted at all :-) More
seriously, I don't think it was explicitly excluded, but I'm also not
sure if I think it's really in scope or not.

| possibilities are endless.  But launching XProc without standardized
| RDF processing will slow the development of these sorts of
| applications.

I understand the desire to have all the important technologies in V1
of a spec. I've also seen what happens if you let that goal drive the
design process. Pretty, it's not.

Here's what I suggest: get some RDF folks together (I'm happy to be
one of them) and work out what the fundamental building blocks for RDF
support would be (what are the "and friends" in "p:sparql and
friends"). Work out what their signatures would look like and spec
them out.

If there are two or three, propose them as new optional steps during
Last Call. If there are ten or fifteen, then let's see if we can get
the WG to ratify them as a WG Note in parallel with the spec.

Even if they wind up in a WG Note, I promise to do my best to
implement them. :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Next to knowing when to seize an
http://nwalsh.com/            | opportunity, the most important thing
                              | in life is to know when to forego an
                              | advantage.--Benjamin Disraeli