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

Sampo Syreeni wrote:

>On 2010-01-15, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>> Well, simple rules are sometimes good guides to behavior. I take it
>> that you would prefer the much more complicated advice, to let it all
>> hang out.
>
>As for me, I'd make it straight. What do we want from the standard?
>Spell it out loud, now, 

Ok, so I will tell you what /I/ want, and I will spell it out loud:

    NO REMOVAL OR DEPRECATION (NOT EVEN "SILENTLY") 
    OF ANY FEATURE CURRENTLY EXISTING IN RDF!

Isn't that a very simple rule?

And I believe it matches quite well the first few mails in this thread which
sounded to me as if many people "do not want to fix what isn't actually
broken".

Regards,
Michael

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================

Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 22:40:27 UTC