- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:20:54 +0100
- To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I had an action from the face to face to propose a structure for the documents the WG is to produce. Below is a strawman for discussion. Brian Objectives ========== o Provide precise, formal specifications of the RDF abstract model, the RDF/XML syntax, RDF Schema and RDF vocabularies o Provide understandable, readable, approachable explanations to users of RDF and RDF Schema. Target Audience =============== The audience for these docuements can be broken down as follows: o Managers etc who want to know what RDF is about and whether they should be using it. o Authors of technical books on XML, the semantic web etc. The role of developing tutorial material for the bulk of developers is filled by the folks who write these books. o Higher layer semantic web standards designers who will build more expressive capabilities on top of RDF. o Tool builders who design and implement tools that use RDF. o Data modellers who will design new data models using RDF. o application developers Principles ========== o Strong separation of explanatory material from the hard core specifications. Only the hard core specifications are normative. o Use of formal techniques in the specifications where possible. Documents ========= Overview -------- Purpose: High level introduction to RDF and guide to other documents. All that a manager needs to read to understand broadly what RDF is trying to do without getting into how it does it. Answers questions like "What is RDF?", "What would my organisation use it for?", "Where does it fit into the family of XML, metadata and semantic web specifications?", "What do I read next?" and "What is defined and how can it be extended?". Audience: Everyone with any interest in RDF. This is the first document a newbie reads. It's the only document someone needing only a high level view of what RDF is and what its for should need to read. Size: 2-3 printed pages Status: Non-normative Style: Short, concise, readable. Tutorial -------- Purpose: A tutorial introduction and explanation of the RDF specifications. Audience: The primary target audience for this document is the book author. The main goal of this document is to make the specifications accessible to the book writing community, so that they can fill in the gaps and write complete tutorials in their books. This document will also be used by those who eschew the books and and want to figure stuff out for themselves from the specifications. Coverage: Sections covering all aspects of the RDF specs including the abstract model, the RDF/XML syntax, RDF Schema and basic vocabularies such as reification and containers. size: approx 20-30 printed pages style: explanatory status: non-normative RDF Model --------- purpose: Formal specification of the RDF abstract model. audience: Higher layer designers, tool builders, authors coverage: Graph model, n-triple representation, model theory, n-triple formal grammar as non-normative appendix size: < 10 printed pages style: Formal status: normative RDF Schema ---------- purpose: Formal specification of RDF Schema audience: Higher layer designers, tool builders, authors coverage: type, Class, etc and their model theory Vocabularies - reification and containers and their model theory XML Schema data types links to test cases size: < 20 pages style: formal spec, no explanatory material status: normative RDF/XML Syntax -------------- purpose: Formal specification of the RDF/XML grammar and its transformation to a graph. audience: Higher layer designers, tool builders and authors coverage: relationship to XML, grammar, transform to graph, links to test cases size: < 10 pages style: formal spec, no explanatory material status: normative Test Cases ---------- purpose: Machine executable illustrative test cases which illustrate various aspects of the specifiations. Not exhaustive. Not a validation test suite. Explanatory examples. audience: All except managers coverage: everything size: ? style: machine executable with comments status: normative (@@??)
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2001 06:23:48 UTC