- From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:38:52 +0100
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4a4804721001140338p12e8c1b3jfdc89ceb6758894f@mail.gmail.com>
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 P 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