- 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