- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:51:11 -0500
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
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: http://decentralyze.com/2009/10/30/rdf-2-wishlist/ 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. Thanks. -- Sandro (W3C staff contact for RIF, OWL, SPARQL, eGov)
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 17:51:17 UTC