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

Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-07-12

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:01:28 +0100
Message-Id: <>
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 


Graham Klyne
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 04:44:58 UTC

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