Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] from Richard Cyganiak on 2011-03-05 (public-rdf-wg@w3.org from March 2011)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 15:18:05 +0000
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CBF6D77D-AD1E-4C41-8F2C-80E9F208B6C6@cyganiak.de>

On 4 Mar 2011, at 23:45, Nathan wrote:
>> RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]
> 
> yes, a main reason being, if we don't, somebody else will, and possibly a few different people, which would lead to interop problems and require standardization in the future. So may as well get there first.

I'm sorry Nathan. This has to be the worst advice I've ever heard regarding standardization.

If there's no interoperability problem yet, then there is nothing to standardize, and a standardization group has no business concerning itself with the matter. What you're talking about is R&D, and standardization groups are the worst possible place for that.

Best,
Richard

Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 15:18:39 UTC