Re: Overview and Abstract Data Model - new document

>>>Graham Klyne said:
> Dave,
> 
> Thanks for your review.
> 
> I've taken on board most of the points you raise.  To avoid spinning cycles 
> on purely stylistic  matters, I'm going to focus my response on requests 
> for substantive change which I've not incorporated, or for which I feel 
> some clarification is in order.
> 
> At 03:32 PM 7/25/02 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
> >Title:
> >   The group decided this is not an RDF overview document
> 
> I've changed the title to remove "Overview", but I do think it's important 
> the title should reflect that there's content other than just the abstract 
> data model.  Currently:
> 
>    Resource Description Framework (RDF):
>    Concepts and Abstract Data Model
> 
> But I'm still open to other suggestions.

Seems fine to me


> 
> >Section 1
> >   Para 3 Says section 2 is background, design goals and rationale.
> >   Rename section 2 title to represent that.  Maybe add motivation and
> >   design goals to earlier five bullets.
> 
> Section renamed (see below).  Motivation and design goals don't belong in 
> the bullets, which are introduced as the normative elements of RDF 
> specification.
> 
> >Section 2
> >   rename title to 'Design goals and rationale'.
> 
> Following your intent, I think, I've opted for:
> 
>    2. RDF background, rationale and concepts

Fine

> 
> >2.2
> >   [W3C] XML schema datatypes were never in the original RDF design,
> >   need to clarify somehow.
> >
> >   Cite something about W3C XML Schemas.
> 
> I'm not sure what can usefully be said here, other than what is already 
> said.  I think the fact that use of XML schema datatypes was not detailed 
> in the original RDF design is not really relevant here.


  [[The design of RDF is intended to meet the following goals:

      * A simple data model
      * Formal semantics and well-founded inference
      * Extensible URI-based vocabulary
      * XML-based syntax
      * Use XML schema datatypes
      * Anyone can say anything about anything
      * A basis for legally binding agrements
      * Universal expression of ground facts 
  ]]
  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jul/att-0056/01-Overview.htm


No, RDF was not designed to use XML schema datatypes.  This is
incorrect.  We are revising RDF to provide a datatyping mechanism
that is compatible with using XML schema datatypes but it does not
mandate their use.  Better:

  Provide a datatyping mechanism that incorporates W3C XML Schema Datatypes

(or some contraction)

Later on 2.2.5 says "RDF can be used with XML schema datatypes"
- the 'can' is the important thing.

> 
> >2.2.4
> >   cite the normative rdf syntax WD here not stripedrdf
> 
> I looked into this, and come to the view that the normative syntax draft 
> doesn't really illustrate the point I'm trying to make.  Dan's document does.


  [[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://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jul/att-0056/01-Overview.htm

The section is titled about the XML syntax.  Change the reference to
refer to an RDF Core WD that describes the syntax - either the primer
WD and/or the syntax WD.  The STRIPEDRDF document is useful for
thinking about the syntax from a historical perspective but is not
the document to point people at.

And why "ordinary" and "appropriately" ?  This paragraph is a mess.
Please rewrite it to describe that there is an XML syntax rather than
concentrate on this corner case of using a profile of the syntax as
"ordinary" XML (whatever that means).  The way we recommend to use
RDF in XML at present is to use the syntax we define which is
normative, now updated for best XML practice and should be linked here.

> 
> >2.3.2
> >   section 3.7 link is broken.  Point to the mime types section of
> >   the syntax document.
> 
> I've changed this, but cited the MIME type registration document directly.

Fine

> 
> >2.4.1
> >   directed edge-labeled graph ?
> >
> >   Introduce the term triple more formally?
> 
> That comes later.  I've added a forward link.

Fine

> 
> >2.4.3
> >   [XML-AS-RDF] - no reference, not sure what you want to cite here.
> 
> I've cited a work-in-progress of my own, but I'd prefer something more 
> widely known.  RSS might be a candidate?  Can any RSS cognoscenti comment?

Yes, replace with RSS 1.0 which is a well known and used RDF/XML
syntax profile.

> 
> >   N-Triples rather than notation3?  Reverse setence to emphasis
> >   the normative syntax :)
> 
> In this case, I meant Notation3.  (Otherwise, I've reworked the sentence as 
> you suggest.)


  [[
  2.4.3 XML serialization syntax
  ]]

Yet still does not mention the normative syntax despite citing your
work [XML-AS-RDF] reference and actually mentioning that there is a
normative syntax!

Please add a reference to the syntax WD to this section.


> 
> >2.5
> >   It would be nice to see something about XML namespaces, RDF schema
> >   document location and so on, how they have typically been used.
> >
> >   I noticed CC/PP says things about this, beyond what RDF core does.
> 
> That feels to me more like detail material for the tutorial.

Well, in that case the words in the CC/PP WD are beyond what RDF sanctions.

see section 2.5 of this member only link to draft:
  http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP/Group/Drafts/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab-20020716/

> I'm not sure what I could usefully add here.

Mention what you might conventionally find behind a namespace URI.

Mention how an RDF schema document can be found for a property,
possibly.

This section is about URI vocabulary and namespaces but doesn't tell
you how the two relate.  If you can't say anything, add this as a note.


> 
> [[[Section 3:  Jeremy has the editing token for this, and I'll let him 
> respond.]]]
> 
> >   We aren't normative on charmod.  or c14n?
> 
> Currently, we *are* normative on these.  (A note has been added to section 4.
> 1)

No.  Charmod is not a normative reference for the syntax work - we do
not make such references on external working drafts and are not
extending the normative references for the syntax.

Please remove it.

Cheers

Dave

Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 06:39:15 UTC