- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:03:12 -0500
- To: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@theburningbird.com>
On Monday, October 15, 2001, at 11:53 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: > 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. We're not eliminating the "concept of a 'container'", simply its special place in the syntax. Users are still free to use containers in their RDF documents, and RDF Core will release a spec that describes them. > 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? The Working Group has not decided on this yet, but I think it's likely that we'll release an "RDF Tools" sort of spec that defines containers, reification, etc. > Do you see a M & S 1.1 in the next year? I think we'll definitely see some more specs from the WG, but I don't think we plan to replace Model & Syntax. I see our work more along the lines of a "Second Edition" of RDF -- going back and clarifying things that caused problems for developers -- not coming out with a new version. I also hope that the we split out the RDF Model from the RDF Syntax, the separate release of the RDF Model Theory and the RDF/XML Syntax specs is the first step in that process. Thanks for your feedback and feel free to send more comments and suggestions, -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 01:03:20 UTC