Re: Issue rdfms-abouteach

>>>Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com said:

<snip/>

> Rather, I will restate that I am opposed to the removal
> of this feature, and will not likely be swayed unless 
> implementors of RDF parsers can clearly explain to me
> that it is a major pain in the rear end for them.

The evidence is clearly explained in the first email I posted on this:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0470.html

Hilighting comments from implementors
   myself: For streaming parsers (most of them), it sucks.  Kill it.
           Nobody ever complained my parser didn't implement it.

   DanC:
      "my short answer is that it should be removed from the core RDF
       and if it is indeed useful it could be layered on top of the core."
      -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0008.html

      and the issue he raised
      http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-abouteach

   Jeremy:
     various messages including

     "The main reason for dropping aboutEach, which isn't such a bad
      one, is that the corner cases to do with aboutEach are unclear
      (in a range of issues raised in part by me)."
     --  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0524.html

     Nobody ever complained Jeremy's parser didn't implement it efficently.


I found another one:
   Gabe Beged-Dov:
   "In general, I [...] think it is very important that there be a
   well thought out alternative to aboutEach and aboutEachPrefix that
   is processed at a layer downstream from the parser." 
   
    -- http://gabesemanticweblog.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$9


The major evidence for me is:
   * Many existing, deployed RDF systems never used it
   * Many implementations never saw a need to implement it

These are primarily the same reasons we killed aboutEachPrefix months ago

It is a major pain in the rear end for me.

Dave

Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 07:10:37 UTC