Re: Datatyping

> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > I think the interesting and practical work here would be to specify and
> > demonstrate how to use Interpretation Properties in a way that is 100%
> > compatible with RDF as specified.  I think that's the only way to move
> > forward with this kind of work.
> >   
> I don't think 100% compatibility is enough. Adding a second mechanism 
> will simply add to confusion.
> This was considered and rejected by the earlier group, even if that 
> decision with hindsight was not brilliant (it was a 50/50 split).
> I preferred the other design, but I have to learn to live with the one 
> we agreed.

That suggests zero evolvability of RDF.  The alternative is that all of
us who'd like to improve RDF have to simply use another brand, I guess.

I think I'll claim the name "linked json".  And maybe "semantic json"
just for good measure.

      -- Sandro

Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 18:32:12 UTC