W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: [closed] xmlsch-12 capricious syntax

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: 03 Oct 2003 22:24:18 +0200
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Butler@bristol.ac.uk, Mark@bristol.ac.uk, W3C XML Schema IG <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1065212657.5824.491.camel@michael.hit.uib.no>


thank you for your response to our comment.  A full account
of our formal responses to your responses is attached to
For the sake of those who are trying to track this particular issue
using the email archives, our response on this topic is given 

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
 for the XML Schema WG

On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 21:06, 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-12
> raised in (XML Schema)
>   section "4.5. On the relation between RDF and off-the-shelf XML tools (policy, substantive)"
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html
> and (Butler)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0531.html
> and decided
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0361.html
> to postpone it.
> The main points we felt you raised in this comment are:
> 1)  RDF/XML
>    - doesn't match the RDF graph model well
>    - many ways to write things (elements, attributes, attribute values , ...)
>    - cannot write a W3C XML Schema, Relax NG schema, XML 1.0 DTD
>    - "not convienient" to use XSLT, use XQuery, other XML tools
> We know and could give you more problems.  However we felt we
> couldn't fix it all due to the charter constraint:
>   [[The RDF Core WG is neither chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, ...]]
>   -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter
> Although we note, most of the above XML technologies mentioned above
> are successfully used with RDF/XML.
> So we propose to postpone dealing with this in this WG, recording
> your comments for any future work.
> 2)  RDF and XML need not be on different paths
>    - models, QLs, APIs, editors, tools
>    - this cleft is not required
> We encourage work to help integrate better but recognise this is
> heading into larger web architecture issues.
> 3) Propose that the XML serialization were modified to capture more
>    of the regularity of the RDF data model, offer help.
> The WG notes your offer of help and has asked the semantic web
> coordination group to carry it forward.
> 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.

The WG did not approve a formal response to this disposition,
because owing to an error on my part we did not have your
response in front of us; my apologies.  We look forward to
the work you project for the future on RDF syntax.
Received on Friday, 3 October 2003 16:25:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:04 UTC