(moved from SyntaxConsiderations)

[JamesSnell] We should formally capture the data model as an InfoSet. This will help abstract the model so we can switch easily between multiple syntaxes if necessary

[DannyAyers] -1 to infoset (I'd favour an RDF/OWL version, but that doesn't look like happening), +1 to namespaces. +1 to core in a single namespace, +1 to we need to be extra careful to fully articulate our model while describing the syntax.

[RahulDave] On Infoset vs XML syntax, why not define the Infoset in XML syntax. Using DTD?XML Schema, even. I mean for validation, rather than for documentation. Once a precise documentation of one representation can be achived, one can come out of the woodwork with different equivalent carry's: Echo in RSS3, in SOAP, in RFC822, whatever is appropriate to an apps consumption and production. Obviously, the Echo XML syntax ought to be the meeting point for interop. (copied from NamespaceDiscussion)

[DougRansom] Would the specification be hosted on a RDDL page and include some form of XmlSchema -- maybe Schematron?

I think it is a good idea to have an Infoset; after all, XML tagged text may not be the only serialization. There have been suggestions on this wiki to use yaml, etc.

CategoryArchitecture, CategoryModel, CategorySyntax