- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:53:24 -0700
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>, "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@theburningbird.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
I've chatted with Brian McBride on this issue, and also checked out the clarification on containers using the formal grammar (container vs typed nodes). I have no problem with understanding that containers are redundant and that the same data can be recorded using a typed node. Still, if the concept of a "container" is eliminated, wouldn't this be a change to the specification? Even as a clarification? I realize that the syntax is, itself, backwards compatible -- but a change in understanding is still a change to the specification. Will the clarification of the concept of "containers" be included in a new release of the specification? Or as some form of an addendum, or something along these lines? Do you see a M & S 1.1 in the next year? Thx Shelley > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:aswartz@upclink.com] > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 10:15 AM > To: Shelley Powers > Cc: shelleyp@burningbird.net; www-rdf-comments@w3.org > Subject: Re: refactoring RDF/XML Syntax > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2001, at 12:53 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: > > > Wouldn't the process of updating or modifying a released > > specification be to start a > > new release version of the specification? In other words, since > > the RDF Model and > > Syntax are currently a W3C initial recommendation, wouldn't new > > effort that actually > > makes modification to this specification be release 1.1, or > > even perhaps 2.0? This > > isn't errata -- this effort is a redesign of parts of the > > specification. > > Hmm, the working group has tried to be very careful in making > sure that the modifications to the specification be in the > spirit of backwards compatibility and clarification. We're > trying not to cause problems for anyone using RDF 1.0 tools. > > Can you point to a specific item that you think is more of a > change to the RDF specification than a clarification? What's > causing problems for you? > > Thanks, > -- > [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ] > >
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 00:53:44 UTC