Re: RDF 2 Wishlist

On 1 Nov 2009, at 17:51, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> 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?
>
> My own answer is in a recent blog post:
>    http://decentralyze.com/2009/10/30/rdf-2-wishlist/
>
> What's yours?

I did a quick talk at TPAC last year:

* Deprecate RDF reification. Issue warnings, write document to explain  
problems.
* Deprecate collections (Alt, Bag, Seq). See above.
* Serialise all graphs. Let rdf/xml use property URI:
  <rdf:rel rdf:prop=”http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name”>Damian Steer</ 
rdf:rel>
* Serialise named graphs (although I'm not super keen in general):
  * Simple envelope: <document name="foo" type="application/ 
turtle">...</document>
  * Sparql GSPO to dump datasets
  * etc
* Deprecate rdf:id. Make about and resource synonyms.
* Make bnode unlabelled, rather than existentially quantified var.
* Prefixes: warn if some standard set not 'correct'. Have 'grab all'  
namespace.
* Lang _and_ type. Reason for exclusivity lost in mists of time.
* Simple rule language. Not sure RIF has delivered that?
* Literals as subjects. Not that useful, SPARQL allows it.
* Bnodes as predicates. See above. Does SPARQL allow it?
* RDF/XML inverse properties. Make writing more pleasant.
* Equivalence relations. Seems like every use of sameAs is incorrect.

I also liked Pat's keynote as ISWC. Alas, he didn't have much to say  
on the last issue.

Damian