- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:01:28 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:17 PM 7/24/02 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: >If you have XML syntax things that need calling out, we should fix >the XML syntax draft - let me and/or the group know any others. I've >already got your comments from an earlier draft on the notations used >queued up for action for the next draft, but the above wasn't >mentioned then if I recall correctly. Indeed. I reviewed the document then on the basis of the scope thus presented: i.e. the details of correspondence between XML and RDF graph form. When I prepared the "overview" document, I was taking a broader view. If it turns out that this reveals some additional desirable clarifications for the syntax document, then that is fine by me. I think the lesson here, and this is *not* a criticism of the syntax document, or any other specific document, is that in our focus on specific aspects of the RDF specification (syntax, semantics, etc., etc.) we may have lost sight of the broader view. It is my opinion that to disregard the broader view is a disservice to our intended audience. If a broader view can be addressed by enhancements to existing documents, then I think that is perfectly fine. In proposing that there are broader points that might usefully be clarified, I don't think it's fair to treat my comments as criticisms of existing documents that seem to fully satisfy their apparent aims. I believe I have been consistently receptive to the idea that material posted in the "overview" draft might find its eventual home in some other document. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 04:44:58 UTC