RE: quick question/request about syntax wdraft

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:12:18 +0100
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKEBOCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RE: quick question/request about syntax wdraft

Bill:
> RDF doesn't need a veto on all the values, just some of them: the M&S
> seems over constrained at this point. DAML and Tim Berners Lee have
had
> the foresight to use a prefixed value that will play with namespaces;
> possibly we can't expect others to do likewise.
>
> What is _not_ perfectly clear is whether M&S users should crack ahead
> and extend parseType in the hope that if the M&S catches up, it won't
> run them over. Whatever about qualifying parseType attributes, the wg
> should export a clear stance on the matter of parseType extensibility.

>>Jeremy:

We could reserve all unprefixed parseTypes for RDF use, and say that
extensions should use namespaced prefix attributes; thus blessing DAML
and
TBL without a significant change to M&S.
>>

I'd thought about this option (which is the same option we have now, but
hardened). We'll probably have to mandate/describe practice on prefix
usage (make it a namespace!) as you say. Then we have to inform the RDF
community that if it's using unprefixed unrecommended parseTypes it will
have to upgrade. That option does minimise changes to the M&S at the
possible expense of people using it (but being realistic, not that many
people perhaps). If there's change pain, I'd rather the wg bore it. If
we mandate using an RDF namespace for RDF use, it's less likely we'll
step on anyone's toes. I guess ultimately if we're telling others to use
namespaces for extensibility here, we may as well eat our food :) I
observe that the asecendent M&S/XML grammar can continue to claim the
current Literal and Resource attribute values and duplicate them under a
namespace. 

Bill de hÓra

Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 09:08:28 UTC