W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

new document comments

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 09:30:30 +0100
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <28585.1028277030@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Changes I still want to see in the new document (assuming the other
accepted things are folded in, such as title change etc.)

I didn't get closure with Graham on changes to the following
two things (Jeremy - what are your comments?)

2.2.4 XML-based syntax

RDF has an XML-based serialization form which, if used appropriately,
allows a wide range of "ordinary" XML data to be interpreted as RDF
-- http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm#xtocid48012
   Revision 1.27  2002/07/29 13:21:36  graham

Still bogus - 'appropriately', 'ordinary' and citing the wrong thing.

If you want to have give some personal design advice or experience on
creating RDF/XML syntax profiles, put that a document of your own,
not a 'concepts and abstract data model' WG document.

The striped syntax document does not describe the XML syntax in
a normative way.  Remove this.

I suggest:

  RDF has a recommended XML serialization form which can be used
  to encode the data model[RDF-SYNTAX].

which doesn't include the IMHO too value-laden words you had.

   2.4.3 XML serialization syntax

   RDF has a specific serialization syntax based on XML. There are
   several ways in which a given RDF graph can be represented in XML:
   these various forms allow RDF to be represented in ways that are
   amenable to specific XML applications. In this way, XML
   application data can easily be designed to be accessible to
   generic RDF processors [XML-AS-RDF].

-- http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm#xtocid48023
   Revision 1.27  2002/07/29 13:21:36  graham

Here we go again with promoting profiles of the XML syntax and citing
a draft ID document you wrote instead of the recommended syntax and
WD which isn't cited until 5 paragraphs later in 2.5

I want to see just syntax wd cited here since, again, that's what
this section is about.  Your personal work may be interesting, but
promoting the latter above the recommended syntax isn't useful to
people looking for definitive pointers.

If such design advice is needed, put some more complete paragraphs
together to the group and we can see where it may live - in the
primer (as design advice, or an RDF in the field section) or the
syntax WD.

Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 04:31:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:14 UTC