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

Re: [closed] xmlsch-10 canonical syntax

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:25:35 +0100
Message-ID: <3F81977F.80209@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, W3C XML Schema IG <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org


Thank you for the response.  I've updated our last call comment 
disposition appropriately for this and the response to xmlsch-11.


I have also included this as a formal objection listed at:


This currently treats your objections on xmlsch-10 and xmlsch-12 as a 
single objection entitled "Failure to revise the RDF/XML syntax" and 
also includes a reference to the xmlsch-12 last call comment for 
completeness.  I hope this is a fair representation of the position, but 
please feel free to let me know if you would like this presented 


C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> 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.
> 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 Monday, 6 October 2003 12:59:05 UTC

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