- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@HPLB.HPL.HP.COM>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:58:10 -0000
- To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > Why is the MT spec not a normative reference, while the (broken old) M+S > > spec is normative? Should implementors code to M+S or new MT's > notion of the > > graph? Presumably the latter, since we talk of bNodes etc. > > > > Is the lack of a normative ref caution stemming from the fact > that the MT > > includes stuff like RDFS closure rules, and we don't want to give > > impresssion that syntax can't be implemented without that stuff? (eg. > > see our exchange earlier re my idea for using subPropertyOf to serialise > > XML-unfriendly predicates). > > That's the general reason. > > > .. It should somehow be possible to make > > normative ref from syntax to MT without parsers having to have inference > > engines, shouldn't it? (for some sense of 'normative reference'). > > I guess. > > I was wondering about a specific conformance statement something like: > > [[To implement this specification requires reading and understanding: > > XML, XML-NS, Infoset, XML Base, RFC 2396 (URIs), RFC 3023 (XML > Media Types), RDF Test Cases > ]] > > and for understanding the specification, also RFC 2119 (KEYWORDS). > Maybe Model Theory could be in another related list. > I think it is useful to have a clear distinction between necessary and interesting references. In this light I agree with Dave's original judgment that MT is interesting but not necessary for syntax. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 04:59:41 UTC