Re: Alternatives to containers/collections (was Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0")

Michael Schneider wrote:
> r own specs as /optional/ features of RDF. 
> This reminds me to OWL 2, where the concept of an n-ary datarange is now
> also an optional feature, and there is a first type of n-ary dataranges,
> namely linear equations, available in its own document [1], maybe others
> will follow over time. This strategy settled some longish and heated
> discussion within the OWL Working Group about whether n-ary dataranges
> should go into the core language or not, and if yes, which and to what
> degree, etc.
> [1] <>

I think optional features are, in general, a bad idea.
They are technically flawed solutions to political problems.
If there is not consensus that a feature should be in, then it is 
non-standard, and should not be included.

"The greatest way to undo the utility of a specification is with too 
many optional features."


Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 17:24:28 UTC