Would an RDF "living standard" be a good idea?

(this discussion has been started on [0], but is relayed here to reach a 
larger audience)

Hi all,

A lot of good ideas about how RDF could be improved have been brought 
up, especially on the Easier RDF github repo [1]. However, actually 
implementing those changes in the RDF specification would be a huge 
task, considering the sheer amount of recommendations that would need 
updating [2]. I may be wrong, but I consider this to be a major reason 
for the inertia of RDF.


The new W3C process [3] makes it possible for recommendations to be 
updated in a more agile way [4] than what was previously possible, 
similar to the HTML5 "living standard".

Should a working group publish a new version of the RDF (and friends) 
specifications and opting in for this feature, it would then become much 
easier for RDF to evolve. On the other hand, it might hurt 
interoperability to some extent, as all implementation may not implement 
the changes at the same pace.

So my question to this community is: would the pros of an RDF "living 
standard" outweight the cons? Could we strike a better balance between 
agility and interoperability than what we have now?

[1] 8 of them for RDF itself; 13 more for SPARQL; yet another 12 for OWL...


The new W3C process makes it possible for recommendations to be updated 
in a more agile way than what was previously possible, similar to the 
HTML5 "living standard".



Should a working group publish a new version of the RDF (and friends) 
specifications and opting in for this feature, it would then become much 
easier for RDF to evolve. On the other hand, it might hurt 
interoperability to some extent, as all implementation may not implement 
the changes at the same pace.



So my question to this community is: would the pros of an RDF "living 
standard" outweight the cons? Could we strike a better balance between 
agility and interoperability than what we have now?


   pa



[0] https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/88
[1] https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/
[2] 8 of them for RDF itself:
       https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/rdf/publications
     13 more for SPARQL:
       https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/sparql/publications
     yet another 12 for OWL:
       https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/owl/publications
     ...
[3] https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/
[4] https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#allow-new-features