W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2009

Re: RDF 2 Wishlist

From: Thomas Lörtsch <thomas@stray.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:10:52 +0100
Message-Id: <CC3010B8-A03F-4889-BF59-1AFB7890B091@stray.net>
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Am 01.11.2009 um 18:51 schrieb Sandro Hawke:

> So, what should W3C standardize next in the area of RDF, if anything?
> OWL 2 added a bunch of stuff to OWL that users wanted and  
> implementors were willing to tackle.  Are there things like that  
> around RDF?

A notion of context or scope (or at least named graphs).

I found these slides very convincing:
http://www.slideshare.net/PatHayes/blogic-iswc-2009-invited-talk

Would probably also solve Adrians problem.

Ciao
Thomas




>
> My own answer is in a recent blog post:
>     http://decentralyze.com/2009/10/30/rdf-2-wishlist/
>
> What's yours?
>
> Two quick caveats:
>
>   * W3C takes backward compatibility very seriously.  If you're
>     proposing something that doesn't have a solid migration story,
>     please call it something else, something that doesn't look like
>     it's taking over from RDF.  Serious proposals should allow
>     existing data-consumer and data-producer systems to keep working,
>     with only gentle pressure for upgrading as people want to
>     interoperate with the new features.
>
>   * While public input (like this) is welcome, and good for laying
>     out the options, to actually have a seat at the table in deciding
>     what W3C does next, an organization has to join W3C and help pay
>     the bills.  See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/membership for
>     details.  Argue facts and designs here, but priorities there.
>
> Thanks.
>
>    -- Sandro (W3C staff contact for RIF, OWL, SPARQL, eGov)
>
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 20:11:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:32 GMT