- 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>
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 [STRIPEDRDF]. ]] -- 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. Dave
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 04:31:22 UTC