- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:10:51 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
2009/11/1 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>: > So, what should W3C standardize next in the area of RDF, if anything? Turtle syntax. > 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) > > -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 19:11:31 UTC