Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

Chris Welty wrote:
> Without volunteering myself to be such a contact, I have (as both a 
> users of many RDF implementations and a W3C chair and I suppose a 
> self-declared semantic web expert) been the recipient of a lot of 
> complaints and suggestions regarding the design and implementation of 
> RDF, and at ISWC a few months ago I suggested to Ivan that we start 
> discussing starting a working group that would investigate a next 
> version of RDF.
> This discussion is happening in several places already, and we thought 
> this was the best place to house that discussion for now.
> A workshop on this subject is also in the planning, more news on that in 
> a week or two.
> I suppose we don't really need to discuss whether we should investigate 
> an "RDF 2.0", but rather what kinds of requirements various RDF users 
> have that they would like to be considered (I'd like this thread to be 
> less "+1" and "-1" messages, and more "I'd like to see RDF support x...")

Hmm. There are lots of aspects of RDF that could be cleaned up or 
improved but it is not clear to me that any of them are major 
impediments to using it at this stage. Having a working group fiddling 
with the foundations is not necessarily a good thing.

I'd rather see answers to a question like "this class of applications is 
being seriously held up by lack of X/problem Y". I.e. more requirements 
than wish list.


Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 08:51:39 UTC