Re: WG Time on RDF Literals issue

On 08/09/11 09:25, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> I think we're spending a lot of time on the literal issue yet it is
>> supposed to be a time permitting work item. It would be a shame if
>> more important issues such as graphs were pushed out into a wg extension.
> +1

I ahve some sympathy for this but feel it downplays the fact that the WG 
work is determined by the energy people put in, and is not by direction.

There is the discussion "[Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets" for example. 
It's good to see a specific proposal being made and used to seed 
discussion.  There is the prov-WG telecon upcoming.

On the literals issue, while it time permitting, the WG has already 
decided on one change that does impact existing data and existing 
software (simple literals and xsd:string).

As someone connected with software, there is a very real cost in 
explaining and supporting people through this change.

What would be helpful is a WG write-up of the change, in simple and 
easily accessible language, that people offering (free) support to users 
can refer to.  It does not have to be a formal WG document.

I'm willing to help and/or write such a thing.


Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 08:18:20 UTC