W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

RE: Dispositions of Dave Beckett's comments

From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 07:30:14 -0700
To: "'Aaron Swartz'" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "'Dave Beckett'" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "'RDF Interest'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "'spec-comments'" <spec-comments@prismstandard.org>
Message-ID: <000201c0bb81$6f0b9820$6501a8c0@interwoven.com>
Aaron Swartz asks:

> Wait a sec... Are you explicitly adding something to PRISM 
> that will make it
> incompatible will the rest of the RDF world? I may not understand the
> comment, and apologize if this is the case, but if I read it 
> correctly,
> PRISM files using this special addition will be essentially 
> unusable with a
> generic RDF processor. This would be a Bad Thing.

Obviously that would be bad, no that is not what the requirement
means. The RDF files look no different than before.

The intent of the requirement is that when a PRISM-compliant
application receives an RDF document which says:
  <dc:creator>Joe Smith</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Anna Baker</dc:creator>
and it needs to output that information, the output
must say:
  <dc:creator>Joe Smith</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Anna Baker</dc:creator>
and must not say:
  <dc:creator>Anna Baker</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Joe Smith</dc:creator>
even though Anna Baker would sort before Joe Smith.

Inside my implementation I have not been keeping track of
the original order of things. But I need to so that I can
put out reasonable-looking bibliographic records.

Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 10:31:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:29 UTC