Re: [closed] xmlsch-10 canonical syntax

• From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
• Date: 03 Oct 2003 22:21:47 +0200
• To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
• Cc: W3C XML Schema IG <w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
• Message-Id: <1065212506.5798.486.camel@michael.hit.uib.no>

Colleagues,
thank you for your response to our comment.  A full account
of our formal responses to your responses is attached to
https://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
> 
>     https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10
> 
> (raised in section
>   "4.4. Normative specification of XML grammar (policy, substantive)" of
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html )
> 
> and decided
> 
>     https://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:
> 
>    https://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 Friday, 3 October 2003 16:22:51 UTC