Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

On 14/01/2010 12:00 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2010, at 09:05, Danny Ayers wrote:
>
>> 2010/1/13 Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Personally I don't think the time is right for an "RDF 2.0"
>> (suggesting a major overhaul), though an "RDF Second Edition" (as Jiri
>> suggests) may be desirable.
>
> Agreed. Anything that broke back-compatibility at this point would be a
> huge mistake in my opinion.

I agree - live with the specs we have. There's data out there and some 
of it uses unpopular features but let's not invalidate that data in any way.

	Andy

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 15:29:27 UTC