- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:12:02 +0100 (BST)
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- cc: "Ora.Lassila" <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>, guha <guha@alpiri.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote: > Ora.Lassila@nokia.com <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com> wrote: > > > I am not against anyone inventing new schemes, just that there ought to be one > > that's "preferred" to ensure some baseline interoperability. I do not believe > > that just having triples and nothing else constitutes interoperability. > > Interoperability is Hard Work. We can only bring people so far and > encouraging them to use our container scheme is not one of the places I want > to go. Build translation rules instead. This is one situation where the backwards-compatibility issue Ron raises is very pertinent. People are using containers already - reorganising the RDF documents (and our mindsets) into "layers" is a great idea*, but containers must stay. It may be hard work (I wasn't expecting a cakewalk) but suddenly producing a normative document that says "there is no core definition of what the RDF you've been using means" is ridiculous. It doesn't do anyone any good. jan * as in, anything that eases the clarification and understanding of RDF by the world at large has got to be a good thing. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Prolog in JavaScript: http://tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/~cmjg/logic/prolog-latest
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 10:13:56 UTC