- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:36:40 -0500
- To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- CC: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Art Barstow wrote: [...] > In the Open Issues of [2]: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/#intro_issues > > The issue "is N-Triples normative?" is raised. Given the > MT's reference to N-Triples it seems the answer is yes. > > What do the WG members think about this issue? I don't really know how to answer questions of the form "is X normative"? Here are some questions I can answer that are perhaps relevant: 1. does our specification of n-triples constrain the set of XML documents that conform to the RDF 1.0 spec? No. 2. does our specification of n-triples constrain software that conforms to the RDF 1.0 spec? No. 3. does the RDF 1.0 spec say that RDF/xml is the only syntax in which RDF may be expressed? No. 4. does/should the model theory *depend* on the definition of n-triples? No; it's independent of any particular serialization of RDF. 5. is it useful to use n-triples as an editorial device in the model theory document? Yes, I think so. 6. should the model theory draft cite the n-triples definition from the testing draft? Yes; given 4 above, I suppose this should be an informative citation, if we're going to distinguish informative from normative citations at this point in the drafting process. > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/ntriples/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 09:36:42 UTC