[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] FW: First Draft of RDF, differences from my notes.
After reading the RDF paper, I posted the following message to the RDF working group. Since the RDF paper is now posted to the XML dev mailing list, these comments are relevant in the new context. --Andrew Layman AndrewL@m... > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Layman > Sent: Friday, August 01, 1997 4:24 PM > To: w3c-labels-wg@w...; w3c-dsig-collect@w... > Subject: First Draft of RDF, differences from my notes. > > Thank you for the early draft of the paper. In reading it over, I've > found a number of points that differ from my recollection of our > Boston meeting. Perhaps my notes and memory are wrong on some of these > points (in which case I welcome correction) but it also appears that > some new features have crept into the document: > > 2. We only agreed on ablocks describing single resources. I > remember discussing having an RDF assertion block describe > characteristics of more than one resource, but concluding that this is > a difficult problem with great risk of user confusion. (I'm not > opposed to solving this problem; just want to note that we did not > solve it but left it for the future.) > > 2.4 I don't remember us ever finding a satisfactory way for the > ablock to actually contain its target resource (because the > subelements of an ablock are interpreted as properties of the ablock's > target). > > 2. We discussed the need for a small set of base data types, which > I believe were strings, numbers and dates/times. We also talked at > length about the need to distinguish between a base semantic type such > as date and a particular format such as ISO8061. The sentance > beginning "The domain of property values..." does not reflect dates or > the semantic/format distinction. > > 3. I don't remember agreement on refTypeAttr. Did we but I don't > have it in my notes? > > 3. We most definitely did not agree that the first namespace > element sets a default namespace! We did agree, tentatively, that we > might make the "as" attribute optional, where its omission could > signal that it was to be the default namespace for its containing > element (with the caveat that this needs more thought). We also > discussed that a namespace attribute on the containing element might > be a better way to achieve the same effect. > > 3. I remember discussing listItem, but don't remember ever nailing > it down precisely or agreeing on it. > > Example 5.1.1. This simply needs to be clarified. I think what > is meant is that an ablock with no href has as its implied target the > entirety of the enclosing document. > > 5.2.3 The note at the bottom makes the assertion that a downlevel > application can blindly concatenate together elements it does not > understand. My recollection is that we discussed this, concluded that > such a policy is dangerous and presumes to dictate processing. We did > agree to investigate adding some standard attribute that might signal > when such a policy is reasonable. We identified three values for such > an attribute: (a) ignore the unknown element, (b) ignore the unknown > tag, (c) application cannot process this element or any peer. > > I don't mean these comments to be interpreted as disagreements with > any aspect of the RDF design, but rather as a report on differences > between my notes and the current paper. > > --Andrew Layman > AndrewL@m... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph R. Swick [SMTP:swick@w...] > Sent: Friday, August 01, 1997 9:49 AM > To: w3c-labels-wg@w...; w3c-dsig-collect@w... > Subject: First draft of RDF specification for review > > The first draft of the Resource Description Framework Model and Syntax > specification (Lassila & Swick, eds.) is now ready for your review and > comment. > > http://www.w3.org/Member/9708/WD-rdf-syntax-970801.html > > I would like to ask this working group's permission to distribute > this draft to w3c-xml-sig. xml-sig is the forum where technical > discussions of XML are ocurring and they particularly need to see > our requirements for the namespace tag. The only reason I ask your > consent is that while xml-sig is a W3C Members forum, it has quite > a few non-Member invited experts. I will distribute this draft to > that list at 1600UTC on Monday, August 5 unless I hear serious > objections before then. > > Thanks to all who have contributed thus far, and to each of you who > will take the time to review and make suggestions for improvement. > > -Ralph and Ora xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|