- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 21:48:44 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 17:04 02/04/2003 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >[[ >Might you be persuaded that in these circumstances, the best course of >action is to leave it to a new, fresher WG to consider these issues and >that that WG would be best placed to decide how to move current use to >whatever solution they propose. > >In the meantime, the best strategy for the current WG is to reduce the >prominence of the existing vocabulary, whilst at the same time clarifying >its specification for those who have chosen to use it. >]] > >Graham/Jeremy: is there any chance you can propose a disposition for this >for Friday as well. Hmmm... the decision seems to be fairly clear-cut choice: (a) reject [[ Reification as defined is implemented in RDF parsers, and we believe that there is some actual use, even if the exact meaning is unclear. ]] (b) accept [[ Reification does not live up to its intended use, may be a future source of complexity and interoperability difficulties, and is hence removed from the RDF specification. ]] I suppose there might be a third way: (c) fudge (deprecate) [[ Reification as defined is implemented in RDF parsers, and we believe that there is some actual use, but lack of clarity and failure live up to its intended use mean that it mar be a future source of complexity and interoperability difficulties. Use of the reification vocabulary remains legal RDF, but is not encouraged and is expected to be superseded by better defined vocabulary based on broader implementation experience in future revisions of RDF. ]] (a) and possibly (c) remain options only if we decide to pull the plug on bagId. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 15:53:26 UTC