RDF 2 Wishlist

So, what should W3C standardize next in the area of RDF, if anything?
OWL 2 added a bunch of stuff to OWL that users wanted and implementors
were willing to tackle.  Are there things like that around RDF?

My own answer is in a recent blog post:

What's yours?

Two quick caveats:

   * W3C takes backward compatibility very seriously.  If you're
     proposing something that doesn't have a solid migration story,
     please call it something else, something that doesn't look like
     it's taking over from RDF.  Serious proposals should allow
     existing data-consumer and data-producer systems to keep working,
     with only gentle pressure for upgrading as people want to
     interoperate with the new features.

   * While public input (like this) is welcome, and good for laying
     out the options, to actually have a seat at the table in deciding
     what W3C does next, an organization has to join W3C and help pay
     the bills.  See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/membership for
     details.  Argue facts and designs here, but priorities there.


    -- Sandro (W3C staff contact for RIF, OWL, SPARQL, eGov)

Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 17:51:17 UTC