[humanmarkup] Re: [humanmarkup-comment] [RDFCore] Items (was:HumanMarkup: Paved With Good Intentions)

[Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga <rkthunga@humanmarkup.org>]

Excellent Manos!  This is an great start for formal RDF discussion.

Len mentioned the primary discussion at this point should concentrate on XML
Schema primarily, but there are arguments why an RDF implementation might be
beneficial concurrently.  In my opinion, it warrants discussion in its own
right.

1) Subject Lines
------------------
Regarding subjects, we've been using a "document centric" convention for
subject lines.
Possibly we can adapt the RDF discussion to this current system as well?

Document:                 topic:                   subtopic:
------------------------------------------------------------
TC.Policy:
HM.Frameworks:      Buddhism:            beliefs
RDF.Platform:           interaction with XML Schema

----------------------------------------------------------------


2) HumanML -- RDF Subcommittee
--------------------
I would like to persuade you to create a proposal for a "HumanMarkup RDF
subcommittee", and would nominate you as chair as well.  It would be much
easier to organize the efforts in this way, since you are planning to
organize a team (you'll be responsible for the solicitation however ;-)).
If you get a chance, and are interested, do submit a proposal to the board
(the rules are on the OASIS website what a subcommittee entails).

We won't be able to finalize till next meeting of course, but keep in mind.

Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga

----- Original Message -----
From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Cc: <humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 8:26 AM
Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] [RDFCore] Items (was: HumanMarkup: Paved With
Good Intentions)


>
> Hi all, get a cup of coffee. I'm addicted myself.
>
> Parenthesis. Although I haven't been active due to personal
> difficulties, I never said I'm leaving HumanMarkup. Actually, the
> incident forced me to wake up and start doing some work. End
> parenthesis.
>
> Seems the resignation incident produced excellent results as side
> effects. I'm sure that this focus and insight will be produced in a
> direct way from now on (well, most of the times). So, thanks to all. I
> will skip all things I could have wrote since they don't matter too much
> (you all know more or less how I would have responded to everyone in
> private level or in this list) and just focus to the points that I find
> worthy of your time.
>
> More formal documents than this will follow and be published, but input
> has to be asked for in this list. I will be producing two documents,
> developed around a possible but well defined project. One will be the
> framework (which I will call Platform from now on) outline in an
> acceptable depth of detail. The other one will be the requirements
> document. Both documents will be constructed by interaction between
> them, taking place in the "[RDFCore] * " thread.. The first draft will
> be published in thirty days from now, no matter it's progress. I will be
> responsible for the document as I have accepted the role of "technical
> architect for RDF" (wow, a hat). My intention includes the formation of
> a core team responsible of working over this, without of course cutting
> off the rest of the group from the process. We just need the
> responsibility thing.
> The discussion starts with this post. Note: This thread welcomes non TC
> member input ;-)
>
>
>
> Platform discussion: RDFCore.
> Datatypes/explicit values (meaning literals) etc. Models.
> =============================
>
> The reason I strongly suggest we should try to avoid literals (aka
> explicit values like "4" or "high") of any datatype in our core Platform
> (I do not wish to ban literal values in implementations) in general, is
> that it will be extremely difficult for implementors (and of course, us)
> to design systems that will be able to react to such values. Even if
> they do, all this work will be totally useless as it will represent
> custom, non reusable development. What we need of the Platform is it's
> ability to grow. Examples of this feature in different implementations
> are OOP languages, everything XML (especially RDF related, namespaces
> and schemata) etc.
> On top of that, resources according to the RDF model are a simple model,
> already implemented for us, that introduces benefits which are not all
> new; for a small fraction of what I mean, consider the differences of a
> system that processes a number of different literal values (of any
> datatype) versus resources (as values) of object oriented hierarchies.
> Of course, this efficiency can be expanded well beyond the hierarchical
> model.
>
> TODO: Investigate possible complications of breaking the hierarchical
> model.
> I consider this to be of top priority. This will possibly get off this
> list as well.
>
> TODO: Document methodologies of using the resource model for building
> applications that intelligently take advantage of this attribute value
> model. This may span a third document to publish.
>
>
>
> One list, different root threads.
> =============================
>
> It has been pointed out that different objectives need their own room.
> Since we don't really need a number of lists at this stage, I suggest we
> insist on a form of subject threads, at least for the RDF related ones.
> For example, to reply to the technical section above please do use
> [RDFCore] in the start of your subject i.e.: Subject: "[RDFCore] I want
> datatypes...".
> It will help whoever is building summaries or just keeping track of the
> posts.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Manos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>