- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:23:36 -0800
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- CC: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Michael Schneider wrote: > > r own specs as /optional/ features of RDF. > > This reminds me to OWL 2, where the concept of an n-ary datarange is now > also an optional feature, and there is a first type of n-ary dataranges, > namely linear equations, available in its own document [1], maybe others > will follow over time. This strategy settled some longish and heated > discussion within the OWL Working Group about whether n-ary dataranges > should go into the core language or not, and if yes, which and to what > degree, etc. > > [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-owl2-dr-linear-20091027/> > > I think optional features are, in general, a bad idea. They are technically flawed solutions to political problems. If there is not consensus that a feature should be in, then it is non-standard, and should not be included. See http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#option "The greatest way to undo the utility of a specification is with too many optional features." Jeremy
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 17:24:28 UTC