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: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:12:57 -0800
Message-ID: <4B56D729.8020009@topquadrant.com>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>
CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Dave Reynolds wrote:
>
>> And more or less every application I've seen uses named graphs
>> and agrees with the fixes needed (i.e. putting named graphs into RDF,
>> quietly deprecating certain containers and reification) - so let's do
>> it.
>
> I have seen several applications that use both containers and 
> reification, apparently successfully, and would presumably be 
> inconvenienced if they were to disappear. I believe there may be 
> derived standards that use them [2], though they may not be active 
> ones. If such interests were represented on the working group it may 
> take time to get consensus even on those apparently simple issues.
>

I believe it would be futile to try and make any item in the standard 
actually vanish ...
I would suggest limiting any ambition on the deprecation front to simply 
marking something as not suited for new work, and existing work (schemas 
and ontologies) should consider migrating at the next revision.
Given that some existing work may not be revised, but data may still be 
produced according to the existing ontologies, this means that we should 
continue to expect some new data using any old terms for the foreseeable 
future.

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 10:14:36 UTC

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