RE: Document structure

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 02 September, 2002 16:45
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Document structure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the telecon I mentioned that we had been conceiving of 
> datatyping as a 
> layer, whereas now we are conceiving of datatyping as "built-in".
> 
> To try and give some examples, in S-A, S-B, TDL, 
> Stake-in-the-ground, the 
> syntaxes (Graph, RDF/XML, N-triple) were unchanged. The basic MT was 
> unchanged. So a datatyped RDF/XML document could be interpreted by a 
> non-datatype aware RDF processor. (Such a processor wouldn't 
> understand the 
> datatypes, but it would not make mistakes. Datatyping basically adds 
> additional entailments, and additional guide to the applications).
> 
> Now, however we have moved to a position in which the graph 
> itself is changed 
> and hence all other syntaxes and the MT MUST ab initio 
> understand datatyping. 
> There will not be any possibility of supporting RDF 2002 
> without datatyping.
>
> Thus the normative content of the datatyping spec is 
> necessarily normative 
> content of the syntax, abstract data model, and model theory specs.
> 
> It is not clear to me that the non-normative content alone 
> justifies another 
> document.

It seems to me that only a very small portion of the normative
content of the datatyping spec needs mention in the other specs,
specifically those parts relating to the RDF/XML and graph
representations of typed literals.

It think it would be sufficient for the other specs to say
the minimal amount necessary and reference the datatyping
spec for elaboration, examples, etc.

Eh?

Patrick

Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 04:08:50 UTC