- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:07:47 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I don't have a strong opinion about whether the RDFS spec should maintain its present form or not, but I don't think I agree with the idea that the spec should be nothing more than 3 or so pages of terms and rules, with all the explanatory material pushed off into the primer. I expect a primer on a language to be be a source of explanatory material on that language, but not to be the *only* source of explanatory material (and I would expect a primer to go about its job of explaining things differently than a specification would in any case). There is room for argument about examples being part of a language specification or not (I tend to favor them), but I expect the spec by itself to be a reasonable description of the language for those who are intended to be its likely users. If the prose is too "fluffy", let's unfluff it, not eliminate it entirely. --Frank Dan Connolly wrote: > snip > > Anyway... I don't think the RDFS spec should maintain its > present form. I suggest it should be about 3 pages: > just give each of the terms in the vocabulary and > the rules (ala the MT spec) that define them. > Leave all the examples and fluffy prose to the primer(s). -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 11:08:22 UTC