Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

Speaking as a developer using RDF, I agree with the various comments that what 
we need now is not a new RDF specification, but a stable target so we can best 
develop understanding of how to use what we have.  RDF has many faults, but from 
my viewpoint, few of them are desperately inhibiting.  We now have a very 
healthy range of tools that can help us deal with the warts and get at the 
benefits;  I think tinkering with the fundamentals could jeopardize that.

I also think that anything that adds complexity to RDF would be a mistake.

The really hard/interesting work is understanding what we can build on top of 
RDF (or an RDF-like framework).  With such, I think we'll be better placed to 
improve RDF by simplifying it.

(Example: one of the big wins I've found in using RDF is being able to use other 
people's information designs;  I don't see any changes to RDF improving that.)

Echoing Danny Ayers comments, I think that better understanding how to obtain 
the benefits of RDF data exchange for existing formats and applications is an 
immediate priority.  I'm finding that a gradual approach to introducing 
formality is proving effective.

While the engineer in me might wish for some improvements (e.g. full blessing of 
named graphs, semantics review ala BLOGIC, friendlier XML syntax, better 
XML/HTML integration, simplified handling of lists, ...) I can't say that any of 
these would justify the disruptive effects of a fundamental review at this time.

#g
--


Chris Welty wrote:
> 
> 
> Without volunteering myself to be such a contact, I have (as both a 
> users of many RDF implementations and a W3C chair and I suppose a 
> self-declared semantic web expert) been the recipient of a lot of 
> complaints and suggestions regarding the design and implementation of 
> RDF, and at ISWC a few months ago I suggested to Ivan that we start 
> discussing starting a working group that would investigate a next 
> version of RDF.
> 
> This discussion is happening in several places already, and we thought 
> this was the best place to house that discussion for now.
> 
> A workshop on this subject is also in the planning, more news on that in 
> a week or two.
> 
> I suppose we don't really need to discuss whether we should investigate 
> an "RDF 2.0", but rather what kinds of requirements various RDF users 
> have that they would like to be considered (I'd like this thread to be 
> less "+1" and "-1" messages, and more "I'd like to see RDF support x...")
> 
> -Chris
>

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 13:03:39 UTC