- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Date: 03 Oct 2003 22:21:47 +0200
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C XML Schema IG <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Colleagues, thank you for your response to our comment. A full account of our formal responses to your responses is attached to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0011.html For the sake of those who are trying to track this particular issue using the email archives, our response on this topic is given below. -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen for the XML Schema WG On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 21:03, Dave Beckett wrote: > Dear Colleagues > > The RDF Core WG has considered your last call comment captured in > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10 > > (raised in section > "4.4. Normative specification of XML grammar (policy, substantive)" of > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html ) > > and decided > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0361.html > > to postpone it. > > A canonical subset of RDF/XML was considered by the RDF Core WG. > However the WG believes that due to the way mixed namespaces are used > in RDF/XML it is not possible to define such a subset that: > > a) can represent all the RDF graphs that RDF/XML can represent > b) can be described by an DTD or an XML Schema. > > An alternative would be to define a new syntax that is describable > with a DTD or an XML Schema but doing so is beyond the scope of RDF > Core's current charter. We note that the XHTML WG have expressed > interest in working on such a syntax and have been encouraged to do > so by RDF Core. RDF Core also welcomes XML Schema's offer to help > with this work. > > We will add this issue to the RDFCore postponed issues list at: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf > > Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating > whether this decision is acceptable. > > Thanks > > Dave We realize that this is a difficult area, but we believe that it would be a mistake for W3C to move forward with a new version of the RDF specifications without undertaking the work of a revision of the syntax. We regret that we must dissent formally from your resolution of this issue. The current mismatch between RDF syntax and off-the-shelf XML tools has not become easier to bear as time goes on; we believe it must be addressed.
Received on Friday, 3 October 2003 16:22:51 UTC