- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:32:07 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > I think the interesting and practical work here would be to specify and
> > demonstrate how to use Interpretation Properties in a way that is 100%
> > compatible with RDF as specified. I think that's the only way to move
> > forward with this kind of work.
> >
> I don't think 100% compatibility is enough. Adding a second mechanism
> will simply add to confusion.
>
> This was considered and rejected by the earlier group, even if that
> decision with hindsight was not brilliant (it was a 50/50 split).
> I preferred the other design, but I have to learn to live with the one
> we agreed.
That suggests zero evolvability of RDF. The alternative is that all of
us who'd like to improve RDF have to simply use another brand, I guess.
I think I'll claim the name "linked json". And maybe "semantic json"
just for good measure.
-- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 18:32:12 UTC