Re: RDF 2 Wishlist

I think lot of suggestions here in this thread are going to far, and
mixing basic RDF spec, with specialized RDF vocabularies (for stuff like
logic, vocabulary specification - RDFS, OWL), RDF tools functionality
(syntaxes, storage - versioning) and cookbook-like recommendations.

So I would like RDF2 to clearly draw the line what really would be part
of RDF, so I can jump of the train before my nightmares come true and
RDF becomes a heavy-footed behemoth.

IMHO some things like for example n-ary relation representation
( vs vs, or some logic and ontology stuff
are differences between various specialized communities which were drawn
together by generality of RDF and W3C shouldn't bless one approach, but
rather let them coexist, supporting creation of mappings between them.

Jiri Prochazka

PS: Noticed only now, 2 days later, that I forgot to CC to the list,
sorry Sandro for double mail.

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 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 for
>      details.  Argue facts and designs here, but priorities there.
> Thanks.  
>     -- Sandro (W3C staff contact for RIF, OWL, SPARQL, eGov)

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 16:34:46 UTC