- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:03:55 +0100
- To: dehora@acm.org
- CC: RDFCore <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Hi Bill, dehora wrote: [...] > Issue: > > RDF M&S does not prescribe a processing model. However there are > infrequent references made to and constraints made over, RDF > processors*. This can be deemed something of a hedge, while > acknowledging the intent that RDF is to manipulated by machines. This seems like an editorial comment on the M&S text, yes? [...] > Proposal: > > choose option 2 and subedit the current M&S to replace some uses of the > word 'application' with 'RDF Processor'. Add the definition: > > RDF Processor: > Software which operates over RDF at a syntax level. Examples of RDF > Processors are parsers, validators, transformers and (de)serializers; > typically software that prepares or manipulates RDF on behalf of other > applications. The RDF Model and Syntax specification does not define a > processing model for RDF, but does make reference to such processors and > their expected behaviour in certain circumstances. Having an entry in the glossay seems like a good idea, though I personally haven't tended to think of RDF processsors as being confined to operating at the syntax level. Did you have a specific syntax in mind? I'm not sure that modifying the M&S text is that useful until we get to drafting the whatever replaces the model bits of M&S. I suggest that I add this to the list of editorial comments on M&S and we can then deal with it at the appropriate time. Does that work for you? Brian
Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 09:09:11 UTC