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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:23:36 -0800
Message-ID: <4B50A498.1030203@topquadrant.com>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
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] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-owl2-dr-linear-20091027/>
>
>   

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.

See
http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#option
"The greatest way to undo the utility of a specification is with too 
many optional features."

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:05 UTC