- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:52:31 +0000
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On 27/01/2023 12:30, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> If RDF itself is going to be radically updated, RDF Star is only one
> consideration.
This <some name>WG is also chartered to deal with the errata that have
built up. That can be seen as enough for "1.2". I believe there was a
request in the AC review to call it RDF 1.2.
The charter says:
"""
The group SHOULD ensure that any RDF 1.1 data remains valid in this new
version. Furthermore, any RDF or RDFS entailment drawn under RDF 1.1
semantics SHOULD also remain valid in this new version.
"""
I hope that SHOULD is very strong (there has to be explicit
justification, not "it would be better if") and more there to allow the
errata.
I don't think it is a radical update. Such a thing, if it impacts
existing data, is more "RDF 2" territory.
Unfortunately, a coordinated update to all specs is impractical. We do
need to evolve without having an all-spec jump.
There is only some much work that can be done. It isn't practical to add
all the specs to this WG to do that - there's a lot of work already with
RDF and SPARQL.
Andy
Received on Friday, 27 January 2023 15:52:46 UTC