- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:58:11 -0400
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
(I'll reply to the List question separately in a minute.) Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com> writes: > Oh, the hacks I have to choose among! When are we just going to fix RDF? > Can I fix it? Please? Please? ;) Alas, there are rules. There are always rules. :-) There are two parts to fixing these problems in RDF/XML: 1. Come up with a better design. This is easier said than done, but it's possible if people are motivated. This could be done by one person, a tightly-knit group, or an wiki-style wide-open group. A small, motivated, experienced group with a motivated organizer (who is also supported by their employer) is probably the best bet. 2. Form a W3C Working Group to turn those better designs into a W3C Recommendation (RDF/XML 1.1 or 2.0 or whatever). This requires finding a bunch of organizations who think the project is worth significant time and money. I don't have a sense of how hard this would be. It's possible to start a WG without a starting-point design, but in general I think it's better to have a Submission which offers a decent solution which the WG just has to tinker with. I know you were kind of joking, but I thought it might be time to remind people or tell the newcomers that the problems in RDF like this one (which is an officially acknowledged flaw [1]) *can* be fixed if people are sufficiently motivated. -- Sandro [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfxml-literals-in-collections
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 01:59:53 UTC