W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Draft RDFCore comments on web architecture document

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:13:08 -0500
Message-ID: <405B0E04.6030708@acm.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


I agree with the general idea of the comment, but I'd be happier with it 
if the bullet list of items that the TAG should pay particular attention 
to had an additional item along the lines of "clarifying the effects of 
allowing non-dereferenceable URIs (identifying such things as people) 
within the Web architecture" [wording could probably be improved].  I 
think RDF Core has a particular interest in seeing that, if there is to 
be a Web Architecture document, it go beyond the Web most people are 
familiar with, and deal more explicitly with issues raised by languages 
like RDF and OWL.  This may have been part of the intent behind the 
first bullet, but I'd like to see it called out more explicitly.


Brian McBride wrote:

> Here is a strawman formal comment from RDFCore to the TAG concerning the 
>  architecture document last call.
> I would like to decide by email that the WG approves sending this. 
> Accordingly, I will send it on behalf of the WG if I hear sufficient 
> specific endorsement and have no unresolved objections by Tues 23 Mar 2004.
> Brian
> ===========
> RDFCore would like to congratulate the TAG for making an excellent start 
> on documenting the principles that govern the design of the architecture 
> of the web.  We also recognise the great difficulty of the task the TAG 
> has taken on.
> In response to the call for review of [1], several members of the 
> RDFCore WG have submitted many detailed comments on the document [2][3] 
> [4] which we hope the TAG will find useful.  We are confident the TAG 
> will give due consideration to each comment on its merits with or 
> without specific endorsement by the RDFCore WG.  RDFCore requests, 
> however, that the tag pay particular attention to comments that relate to:
>   - having a clear vocabulary and meaning for fundamentatal notions such 
> as resource, representation, naming, identifying etc.
>   - interpretation and use of fragment identifiers
>   - notions of authority and ownership of URIs and resources
> We trust that the citation of the RDF Model and Syntax specification be 
> replaced with a citation of the new RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax 
> document [5] in due course.
> Brian McBride (co-chair)
> On behalf of the RDFCore WG
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/
> [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/0024.html 
> [3] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1053.html 
> [4] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1057.html 
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 10:11:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:27 UTC