fixing RDF/XML

(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