W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:38:52 +0100
Message-ID: <4a4804721001140338p12e8c1b3jfdc89ceb6758894f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
It is worth considering  development as iterative, so hopefully each round
of specs can be more useful than the one before
even more interesting is going to be ensuring the
interoperability/compatibility of different RDF versions (by internal
mappings), which should be possible, in principle - agree wit Danny mappings
should be a priority and perhaps one thing that should have been thought of
earlier on?

making various SW specs internally more  consistent  is a good idea - that
generally happens with time if you look at history of standard harmonisation
is an
historal process that can never really stop

Since you ask,  my take is that  while from a formal, mathematical,
theoretical view point, RDF may well be flawless,  in practice.it may not be
that useful
because reality is far more complex than our teoretical models,

  the context of adoption/deployment that needs to be studied more, perhaps?

iin the long term requirements gathering for something like sw spec should
be an ongoing process, cause requirements do change
while the starndards get developed/adopted - its normal to end up with
something that by the time its ready its already in need of updating

>From a 'problem solving' point of view (ie. what do we do now), I would
recommend to start from a careful analysis of those 'complaints', plus
creating a library of useful application case studies (where it works, where
it doesnt, why)
and evaluate various approaches to address the issues,

so I would prioritise finding a way of systematically collecting and
investigating in depth the complaints, they are your most
precious asset, and keep them coming throughout the lifetime of the project

there may be some constraints in there that you need to recognize

this job we generally call 'business analysis' -

do not make decision too early, and do not allow one class of solutions (say
what works in theory) become more predominant
over others (what works in practice) -

You may be able to make some small adjustments and fine tuning and be able
to turnit around purely by way of
incremental develoment strategy, this would enable you to cautiosly move
forward with an open mind to ongoing improvement

and some intelligent interfaces


On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> 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...")
> -Chris
> --
> Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
> +1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
> cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Paola Di Maio
“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
Albert Einstein
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 11:39:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:04 UTC