Re: Problems with the RDF Semantics document

Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Perhaps very little *can* be done, given the constraints we operate under. 

Yet another very interesting conversation with lots of good points, that 
quite probably will amount to nothing, like most of the other big issues 
and topics I've seen discussed since this WG started (and as long as 
I've been familiar with the community, and for the last decade as I'm 
reminded every time I read the archives).

Apologies if I'm speaking out of turn here, but just when are all these 
valid points and concerns and lessons learned going to be merged 
together in to an "RDF 2" like set of specifications which caters for 
both the advanced side of the sem web, and the common could be used by 
millions linked data side of things? Is there even such a thing on the 

In all my adult life, I've never seen so many great and capable minds in 
one place, committed to work together for a good year or two - surely 
the only things to come out of this can't be a non bc breaking minor 
clean-up revision of a 6-10 year old spec, a rec badge on two formats 
people have been using for years, and a simple json serialization? This 
is no discredit to the group at all, quite the inverse, in fact I'm 
pretty sure that one could write the 41 names of the WG members on bits 
of paper, pick out 4 from a hat, give them a month and they'd come back 
with all the aforementioned done. The people in this group are capable 
of *far* more than what's on the cards.

Fair enough if that is all that happens here and comes out of this WG, 
it's certainly not a bad thing and would be good progress, but if all 
this gold that gets considered is being pushed to one side for now, then 
when exactly is it going to be picked up and have something done about it?

I'll sit back, fall in line and not mention this again - apologies I 
just had to vent a little frustration and say the above, will leave the 
rest to posterity.



Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 23:25:45 UTC