Re: Syntax Doc

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> Jeremy:
> 
>>Section 2 must have one of the following changes:
>>- clearly marked as informative
>>
> 
> Dave:
> 
>>No,
>>
> 
> Clearly a matter of disagreement.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
>>- moved to being an informative appendix
>>
> 
> Dave:
> 
>>No.  People needed examples and there were definitely a need for them
>>plus an explanation of how the syntax works - this document isn't
>>just for parser writers.  I've already had positive feedback on this.
>>
> 
> Non-sequitor. A non-normative appendix is still part of the doc, still
> available for the reader. The primary role of a normative spec is to
> specify. Other docs can give examples.
> 


Of course the primary role of a normative spec is to specify.  Including 
some examples doesn't diverge from that role;  in fact, it aids in the 
performance of that role.  More specifically, the primery role of a 
normative spec is to *convey the meaning of that specification to the 
people who need to use it*.  A normative spec that no one could 
understand wouldn't be terribly useful, in spite of how "normative" it 
was.  The RDF/XML specification is supposed to describe the RDF/XML 
syntax in a normative way, and I would interpret that to mean "not just 
to parser writers and parsers" (who can process syntax rules and 
determine whether a piece of RDF/XML is written properly or not). After 
all, many W3C  normative documents include examples. I'd suggest people 
look at this the other way:  I can't think of a better way to insure 
that what people think RDF is (including both RDF/XML and Schema) is 
what's described in the Primer than to make all the normative specs 
"bare-bones normative" (and hence virtually unreadable).  The specs 
people can read tend to become "normative" by usage.


--Frank


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 09:28:15 UTC