Re: an idea: @context in coercion rules ?

On Aug 1, 2012, at 11:43 , Markus Lanthaler wrote:

>> Bottom line: I am still in favour of a feature freeze, moving the
>> current document into LC as soon as this is administratively possible,
>> with the only technical change being possibly *removing* features and
>> not adding any (beyond handling errors, of course). Even if we are
>> forced to reject some feature requests...
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> P.S. Maybe separating and freezing the current version on Rec track,
>> and considering a 2.0 version with feedbacks from the community is a
>> way to go.
> 
> I think I wouldn't be too opposed doing so as I think a lot of people
> (Apache Stanbol, VIE, Joshfire, etc.) are currently just waiting to have an
> official, stable spec to start/update their implementations and ship them.
> We would also have the advantage of (hopefully) seeing some real-world usage
> of it which would make it tremendously easier to decide which features are
> worth adding.
> 
> However, if we are going to do this, it is crucial to make it crystal-clear
> that 1.1 (not 2.0!) will be 100% backwards-compatible and that is a minor
> update that happens in a timescale of months and not years. I would thus
> like to see the first 1.1 draft being published more or less at the same
> time that 1.0 enters into LC. Thoughts?
> 

Backward compatibility requirement: yes, I agree. 

I am less confident about the second. Publishing a rec but having a next version already as an official draft does not seem to be the right message to be sent out. Personally, I would prefer to wait for more extensive usage and implementation experiences to be gathered with a stable spec.

Ivan



> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 09:49:09 UTC