Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > So, what is your conclusion? That a spec should never be changed, > because (of course) the longer it is left unchanged, the larger the > investment in software based upon it. So apparently no specs should ever > be revised? HTML should still be HTML 1.0, and OWL 2 should never have > been written? Pat, don't be silly. I wrote the following in the very message you responded to: >> Yes, there are some useful additions & changes to be made to RDF that >> have real use-cases screaming for them (and people already >> implementing because they need them). The top 7 at [1] is a good list >> of these, >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/rdf-work-items/table But as somebody wrote to me off-list in response to my message: > We shouldn't tangle ourselves in discussion that most probably won't > lead us anywhere and won't benefit eventually the common user. it's all > about a balance: being pragmatic and good quality research.. Frank. ---- -- Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh Working on the Large Knowledge Collider http://www.LarKC.euReceived on Saturday, 3 July 2010 14:59:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:19 UTC