- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 03 Jan 2003 01:06:33 -0600
- To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Cc: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 16:27, Jeff Heflin wrote: [...] > Major comments: > ------------------ [...] > - In general the document does not serve its purpose as a syntax > reference very well. Ideally, I'd like to see the grammar for each > language construct. The RDF Schema is only helpful to those who already > know RDF pretty well. I'd like our potential readers to be able to use > this as a definitive document about what's valid syntax in the language > and what is not. I don't think it's a syntax reference. The syntax is RDF/XML syntax. It's a vocabulary reference. It should read like the standard C library reference, not like the C language reference. (In fact, I think calling OWL a language is misleading, but I guess it's a little late to re-open that one.) My major comment about the reference document is just to the contrary: it shouldn't be written in terms of XML elements and attributes at all, but rather in terms of properties, classes, and the like, ala RDFS. The guide serves as our repository of copy-and-paste-able examples. There are lots of specs for XML formats that just re-iterate a grammar in prose, but never actually tell you the meaning of the comination of syntactic elements. Let's please don't go there. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 02:06:16 UTC