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 22:59:17 -0800
Message-ID: <4B5163C5.30803@topquadrant.com>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Michael Schneider wrote:
> Ok, so I will tell you what /I/ want, and I will spell it out loud:
> 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".

Michael that seems a little strong ... are you against deprecation in 
the sense of discouraging use of some constructs that experience has 
shown as not very helpful.
If we have broad consensus that some part of RDF was basically 
ill-advised, then, sure, we don't want to break existing data, but we 
don't have to commit to making more of the same.

We are still in early days of the Semantic Web. Either the current RDF 
data is less than 1% of the total RDF data in a few years time, or we 
are wasting our time. Thus we should not be overly committed to errors 
in that first 1%

There does seem to be consensus in this discussion that RDF is basically 
working, and we don't want to make changes that put that at risk


Received on Saturday, 16 January 2010 06:59:55 UTC

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