- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 05:33:25 -0400 (EDT)
- To: RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
[snip] OK, time out! This thread has gone on plenty long enough for my taste. How about we try to give it some focus and closure. In particular, I think we should try to focus on: - proposing textual revisions to specs (RDF MT, RDF syntax, URI - RFC2396, RDF Schema) - comparing implementation behaviour (pointers to code, tools etc) using concrete fully worked out test cases (instance data plus schema) It's an interesting topic, I could just see the thread continuing on for eternity without hope of resolution unless we try to achieve something specific. We seem to revisit this theme periodically. I don't want to be reading "What's the URI for a person" threads here in 5 years time! Which means figuring out ways of agreeing, of agreeing to disagree, and agreeing how our disagreements manifest themselves in the understanding of RDF/XML documents. I would like to see specific RDF/XML test case documents used as the focal point of debate, and specific real world applications (digital library systems, end user interfaces, queries) that illustrate the problem. If there's a problem, let's try to pin it down to specific examples. This means that when people write sample fragments of data, they should probably take care to spell out the associated schema definitions (rdfs:label/comment prose) for classes and properties used, rather than assume the meaning is clear from the property etc names. Anyone else want to try wrapping this up? Dan -- mailto:danbri@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 05:33:25 UTC