- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 16:58:42 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, semantic-web@w3.org
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.eu
Received on Saturday, 3 July 2010 14:59:21 UTC