- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:41:11 -0800
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
Sandro: "That suggests zero evolvability of RDF." Hmmm. If we reopen the datatyping can of worms the vote might split 70/30 the other way this time; and ... then next time round it might be 40/60 back again. I'm trying to thing of an equivalent evolution ... there was XML DTD to Schema .... With RDF 1 as specified, it is possible to define your own semantic extension which includes interpretation properties. I guess I would like to see success with this before adding such interpretation properties to the spec. But I am not quite sure what I would mean by success. Jeremy >> 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.
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 21:41:48 UTC