- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:24:37 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 16:54 09/04/2003 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: [...] >>[[ >>As Director, I wonder about whether the group can claim this part of >>the spec to have reached its implementation requirement, >>if the parsers parse the information but the semantics have not been >>field tested. >>]] >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0137.html > >I thought that was addressed by the uses we had identified... Hope so - but that's why I'm suggesting we document more than just Mike's. >>We had three folks say at the telecon that they used reification as >>defined. Mike has written his up. I recall that Patrick and Frank were >>the others. We also have the p3p rdf schema. I suggest we also ask >>Patrick and Frank to say document their use cases on the record so we can >>point to them from the WG response. >> >>Patrick, Frank - you ok with that? > >I didn't catch that Frank was using this. That would be four users known >to us. Maybe I misremembered. >>That would still leaves Tim's point >> >>[[ >>(Remember the story of the man who wrote make(1) and a few >>days later realized that the tab/space distinction in the Makefile >>syntax was a mess, but didn't like to change it because by that time >>several of his colleagues were using the syntax?) >>]] >> >>which I read as saying that for the long term good of the semantic web we >>should ignore the short term pain. Tim will have the option of coming >>back and saying that, but we will at least have differentiated between >>there being no use (which is what I think Tim might believe) and not >>enough use. > >That's for the working group to decide. My action was to draft a response >based on the decision we made. (So far, we've decided that pain/confusion >of keeping it is not so great... it's not as if we've only had "a few >days" to think about it. Also, it appears that the R-vocabulary is >useful, but not for what Tim wants to do. It doesn't feel like a >corresponding situation to me.) Right - we are in agreement here - sorry if I wasn't clear. The WG has decided and yes, your action is to write the formal response matching that decision. Avoiding military metaphors, I'm suggesting we get our ducks well lined up. >>Also, I think we agreed to put health warnings on semantics and schema so >>that folks were aware of what reification isn't appropriate for. > >I guess I should add that to the response? Yes please. Brian
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 12:23:47 UTC