- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:15:48 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 27/04/12 14:09, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 11:00 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> On 25/04/12 19:44, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> ... >> >>> On the other hand, please consider my point: sometimes we can't know >>> whether a design will work until trying it in a fairly big arena, with a >>> lot of attention. As I understand the history, XML was designed by a >>> W3C Working Group. Has it succeeded? Yes, sort of. Has it failed? >>> Yes, sort of, mostly when it was applied in areas not anticipated by the >>> WG (like for serializing data). >> > >>> Yes, we probably only get one shot with a W3C Recommendation for this, >>> so we don't want to get it wrong. But the Named Graphs paper was seven >>> years ago. I don't think sitting back and waiting for more research to >>> happen is a great strategy, either. >> >> This is a strong argument for a two strand approach: >> >> 1/ Standardize the minimal, safe ideas (tested) >> 2/ Layer on top the new ideas to enable usages not currently happening >> (for testing). >> >> If (2) doesn't work out, we have at least helped by standardizing >> low-level details and so (low-level) software will be compatible. >> Boring but a step forward. > > Agreed, with the caveat that "minimal" may (and probably does) include > going a bit beyond what everyone considers "safe" and "tested" as of > today. Could you expand on that in the thread "Sandro's proposal VS RDF Datasets"? It asks what "minimal" is. You touched on this a few times in different places but I'd find it useful to have a consolidated view from you. > > As we've been talking about it in recent weeks, I've been growing more > comfortable with a smaller chunk being standardized here, but I think it > would be a mistake to be *just* syntax, since (as I said), I don't think > it's practical for W3C to publish the semantics to a language months or > years after publishing the syntax. I'm not suggesting that - publish at the same time (this WG). > > -- Sandro > >
Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 13:16:24 UTC