Re: Proposed addition to Charter

[Bill de hÓra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Sam Ruby wrote:

> I for one don't have a problem with the work being done (presuming that 
> there are volunteers), or with the inclusion of transforms or other 
> mappings into the final document.

I count myself as being interested in doing work on this. I suspect 
Danny is also.


> The sticky point to me is putting it in the charter, making it a gating 
> deliverable.
>
> FWIW, I feel the same way about schemas (xml, RelaxNG, or others).

I don't. Fwiw, I think RDF is to be preferred in the same sense we 
prefer XML for syntax or URIs as identifers. In terms of 
architecture and interop RDF has clout.


> On the plus side, such work increases rigor and sometimes exposes 
> questions which were not obvious otherwise.  The potential down side is 
> when recommendations come in to make compromises in order to make the 
> mapping easier.

Personally, I'm on record as being against twisting the core format 
in such a manner. I like James' wording to that effect. Technically 
I suspect it's not neccessary. Socially I think where things could 
grind somewhat is getting the folks interested in the core format to 
agree that the mapping is ok.

cheers
Bill de hÓra