- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:25:35 +0100
- 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
Michael, Thank you for the response. I've updated our last call comment disposition appropriately for this and the response to xmlsch-11. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-11 I have also included this as a formal objection listed at: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#Objections 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 differently. Brian 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. >> >>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 Monday, 6 October 2003 12:59:05 UTC