Re: Issue rdfms-rdf-names-use

>>>Brian McBride said:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Dave said:
> >Note the namespace isn't the one for the syntax:
> >   http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
> >but another one:
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax
> 
> Ahh - that explains something in his emails that I missed the significance 
> of.  I think he perceives the namespace quoted in para 192 as a simple 
> error.  He believes that the intent is that it should read:
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
> 
> I just checked the errata and no correction is there.


So I feel it was not an error; but was a design choice, allowing a
place (namespace) for future RDF syntax things to belong.  Which has
not been used yet, but can't be since as far as I know, it has not
been implemented in most parsers.  I vaguely remember one of the
original RDF WG members describing this to me at some point.


> >However, I feel we shouldn't keep Para 196 around on the grounds of
> >insufficient use and (correct) implementation.  This the first
> >attempt at use I've ever seen and I don't remember seeing any parser
> >that implemented this.
> 
> 
> Is there a proposal covering this?


Nope, but I would propose deleting it because of the reasons I gave:

  * Insufficient correct implementation
  * Insufficient correct use

    ".., I feel we shouldn't keep Para 196 around on the grounds of
    insufficient use and (correct) implementation.  This the first
    attempt at use I've ever seen and I don't remember seeing any
    parser that implemented this."

    -- me, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0611.html

plus the reasons Jeremy gave which including the following:

  * Defines ill-formed documents

    "I would support 'deleting' this paragraph. In particular I feel
    that the new specs should on principle not define the processing
    behaviour for ill-formed documents."

    -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0619.html

which I also support.

Plus on the grounds of general confusion if it was a typo.

Dave

Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 10:56:31 UTC