- From: Thomas Lörtsch <thomas@stray.net>
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:10:52 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
Am 01.11.2009 um 18:51 schrieb Sandro Hawke: > 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? A notion of context or scope (or at least named graphs). I found these slides very convincing: http://www.slideshare.net/PatHayes/blogic-iswc-2009-invited-talk Would probably also solve Adrians problem. Ciao Thomas > > 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 20:11:30 UTC