W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Issue xmlsch-10 "canonical syntax" proposal to close

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:00:42 +0100
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <2975.1051189242@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Brian McBride said:
> Dave,
> a few wordsmithing suggestions along the lines you suggest.

OK with me.  I'ved edit it lightly into a new proposal without the
email bits and pieces.

How could you give the 2nd URL-HERE below of the postponed
issue before sending this response?  It would be



Summary: postpone (technically infeasible within charter)

Draft response:


The RDF Core WG has considered your last call comment captured in


(raised in section
  "4.4. Normative specification of XML grammar (policy, substantive)" of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html )

and decided


to postpone it.

A canonical subset of RDF/XML was considered by the RDF Core WG.
However the WG believes that due to the way mixed namespaces are used
in RDF/XML it is not possible to define such a subset that:

  a) can represent all the RDF graphs that RDF/XML can represent
  b) can be described by an DTD or an XML Schema.

An alternative would be to define a new syntax that is describable
with a DTD or an XML Schema but doing so is beyond the scope of RDF
Core's current charter.  We note that the XHTML WG have expressed
interest in working on such a syntax and have been encouraged to do
so by RDF Core.  RDF Core also welcomes XML Schema's offer to help
with this work.

We have added this issue to the RDFCore postponed issues list.

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 09:03:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC