- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:27:51 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> wrote: > Michael Schneider wrote: >> >> In /my/ experience, you will find for virtually every RDF feature some >> gang >> of people claiming that the feature is not helpful or even broken. > > In desperation, ... rdf:Alt ? :) > If one wishes to be principled, one could either/both 1) Just deprecate all things (containers, reification, the use of owl:import etc.) that have no working formal semantics, unless they can be given some formal semantics that makes sense (i.e. building some sort of ordered lists into RDF semantics if you want lists, building the relatively straightforward named graph semantics into RDF, etc.) 2) Make sure everything that is in the spec that people claim should not be deprecated has some evidence of empirical - and one could add consistent - use in the wild, rather than just people arguing for or against it on listserv. If there are multiple inconsistent uses of something in the wild (sameAs, seeAlso), then split the feature so that it clearly matches the usecases people are actually using it for. And then make sure things that people find difficult to do using obscure features of RDF can be done simply (i.e. the question about metrics discussed earlier, and even things like time, changesets, and provenance if one wished to go really far) I do agree some sort of principles are needed here rather than ad-hoc updates and changes. Empricial driven changes with a clean semantics sound like a place to start. > > Jeremy > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 02:28:24 UTC