Re: RDF framework document

Frank,
Jeremy,

At 08:23 AM 6/20/02 -0400, Frank Manola wrote:
>Graham--
>
>Thanks for the reminder.  Based on my understanding of what the 
>"framework" document was supposed to be up to, I had in mind moving 
>sections 7.1 (model theory) and 7.2 (test cases) out of the Primer.

I agree on both counts.

Jeremy:  I've just updated the web copy at 
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-06-20/Overview.htm:
- section headings (but not ToC) to accommodate material from 7.1.
- Primer 7.2 is already covered by our section 3.6.

(Frank:  that URL will be published to the group when Jeremy and I have had 
a chance to agree on the structure.)

>Section 1 of the Primer contains a list of the other documents, but I 
>think that should continue to be there just to point out that there are 
>multiple parts to the specification.  I would imagine adding a reference 
>to the framework document to that list, and also saying that readers 
>should consult the framework document to understand the roles of the 
>various parts of the spec, and to get an overview of what they do.

That makes sense:  section 3 of the proposed new document expands a little 
on that list.  The current primer content looks about right to me.

>   I may or may not shorten other sections of the Primer (e.g., RDF/XML 
> and Schema) as well, but that depends on whether I think there is 
> sufficient "primer-like" material in other documents (not just the 
> framework document since, e.g., DanBri had indicated that there might be 
> more explanatory material written up for the Schema document).  Anyway, 
> you might have some suggestions yourself as to material that could be 
> moved from the Primer and, if so, send it along.

Taking a skim...

Primer 2.1 - URIs:  I think your material is appropriate for the primer, 
but I'm anticipating that there will be some (more terse) coverage of URIs 
under abstract graph syntax (or maybe a separate section, nearby).  Jeremy?

Primer 2.3 - model:  ditto.

Primer 2.4 - structured property values:  Jeremy, should we say anything 
about this?  My current inclination is not.  I think that falls into the 
"how to" rather than "what is" category, hence more primer-oriented.

Primer 3 - I think that's not affected by the new document.

Primer 4 - I don't have a strong view yet - the new document will say 
something about schema, but I think will aim to be fairly terse (unless we 
subsequently incorporate DanBri's schema document).  I think no change, for 
now at least.

Primer 5 - containers.  Hmmm.  Jeremy, should we have a section?  I think 
we maybe should, but I'm not yet sure where.

Primer 7.3 - reification.  ditto.  I think there's a case for pulling this 
from the  primer and saying a little about it in the new document.  Jeremy?

Primer 8 - RDF as data model.  There's some suggested coverage of this in 
the new document;  e.g. references to various sources dealing with 
alternative Krep formalisms.

Primer 8 - RDF vs XML.  I think a discussion of RDF vs XML still belongs in 
the primer.

Primer 8 - Identifier design... I think we should have something that in 
the new document, especially w.r.t. fragment identifiers.  There's some 
text I wrote at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/2002MayJun/0032.html which 
(FWIW) TimBL has "blessed".  (Ignore the last paragraph about "on the 
web".)  The upshot is that using '#' is a good way to create identifiers 
for non-document resources.

#g



-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Friday, 21 June 2002 07:46:57 UTC