- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:40:02 +0000
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Shelley Powers wrote: > > The working group is delivering more than cleaned up and clarified > documents -- it's also providing a W3C official stand on how a specification > will be implemented and used. Any fudging on this will leave us worse off > than before. Speaking as an ex-wg member and someone who really really wanted an RDF processing model way back when... The wg is right not to specify a processing model and it's not fudging anything. There isn't enough known about how RDF will be used in mainstream computing, and more feedback from the trenches is needed. Especially so on how to connect an RDF web with the current one - there are problems with dereferencing URIs, and XML QNames, yes, but no obvious or agreed upon answers. IMHO it's a better idea to write down the what of RDF and leave it to others to figure out the how. In any case specifying how isn't something that's easily policed by a wg and might adversely affect innovation by overconstraining what people can and can't do. But for now, there is enough information in the syntax documents to get RDF in and out of computers and in the MT to determine the implications of consuming RDF statements. Bill de hÓra
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 12:44:51 UTC