Re: refactoring RDF/XML Syntax

Brian, I've to interject for a clarification here. Deletion of containers in the last Syntax draft 
has frankly left me rather indifferent, because this is just a change in a specific version of a
syntax: you're not changing *the* RDF foundation, which is the model.
And this is/was consistent with the charter of the RDF Core wg, i.e.
<quote from="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter">
The RDF Core WG is neither chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the RDF 
model. However, the group is expected to re-articulate the RDF model and syntax specification in such 
a way as to better facilitate future work on alternative XML encodings for RDF.
</quote>
Which translated is: no big harm, free to clarify and tweak, but not to change the foundations.

But the last thread has left me rather baffled:
<quote>
The working group has made the following claricications so far with respect to
containers:

    o it has removed redundancy in the grammar, as you commented above.

    o it has decided that partial descriptions of containers are legal

    o it has removed containers from the formal model section of the RDF model
</quote>

Although the "Refactoring RDF/XML Syntax" is kinda stretching the charter, it's doing
exactly what the title says: tweaking the RDF *syntax*: so, stretching but probably 
fine wrt the charter, as that's only a syntax after all; some people can complain
about this stretching, others (including myself) are not concerned, as tweaking the syntax doesn't
touch the foundations, and goes correctly into the way the charter suggests: improve alternative 
XML encodings for RDF.

But the moment you're touching heavily the model, like you say in the last line, I don't understand
the mission of Core any more, as you're modifying the RDF foundations. 
And even, later in your reply you say
<quote>
The WG has not completed considering containers.  There are no plans at present
to drop them from the specification.  Note that other specifications make use of
them (CC/PP), which would make removing them, shall we say, controversial.
</quote>
which seems in fact to be in accordance to the charter (but, apparently contradicting
your last bullet above).

Can you/somebody cast some light :) ?
Thanks,
-Massimo (awakened from that third bullet)

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 11:54:57 UTC