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: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:32:14 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd1001150932x5155241fm2f487f9310697d99@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
2010/1/15 Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>:

> 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."

I don't disagree, certainly valid if starting from scratch - but given
the current status of RDF, with baggage that people could maybe do
without, I suspect "optional" might be appropriate. If e.g. RDF
reification was dropped from the spec tomorrow, hard line, it's fairly
likely that it would break someone's setup.

The quiet deprecation thing again, I guess.

Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 17:32:47 UTC

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