- From: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:30:22 +0200
- To: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Bryan Thompson <bryant@amazon.com>, Brad Bebee <beebs@amazon.com>, Michael Schmidt <schmdtm@amazon.com>
good afternoon; your second comment undermines your first one. > On 9. Apr 2024, at 08:33, Sasaki, Felix <felix.sasaki@sap.com> wrote: > > „this third outcome, while valuable, is not one of the chartered tasks. > is it the intent of this note to suggest that the charter should be extended?“ > I Interpret this rather as a statement about what would be a useful outcome of this group, for assuring the relevance of RDF compared to LPGs. And I have the same experience in my day to day job as Ora states it: > “Over the last several years we have seen LPGs increase their popularity thanks to easy-to-understand and easy-to-use features, even when RDF offers more sophisticated features such as (for example) easy graph merging, federated queries, and expressive schema languages.” > On “This suggests to restrict the more capable model to conform with the limitations of the less capable model, not as a matter of usage or a conventional profile, but as a required characteristic. > why would one do this?” > Standardization history shows that restricting capabilities can be a path to wide adoption. XML is mostly a restriction of SGML, removing features without strong use case needs. One can argue about XML in general, I won’t do this here. I bring up this example just to claim that less features, motivated by the strength of use case needs, can be a good decision in standardization. > > Best, > Felix --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2024 12:30:39 UTC