- From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:38:46 +0100
- To: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org, 'Frank van Harmelen' <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Chris Bizer wrote: > I cannot agree more with what Frank has said. > > I think that this working group can be very dangerous and destructive if it > is developing into a talk shop for ivory tower people. > > Thus I think it is very critical to keep the duration and scope of the > working group as small as possible. > > Concerning scope, I think that it is critical that the working group does > not try to develop/pioneer any new technologies, as recent W3C working > groups tried with mixed results. Thus I think the working group should only > do two things: > > 1. tidy up the specs and delete all stuff that has not been widely adopted > by the community over the last years > 2. give an official blessing to widely used RDF data model extensions and > widely used alternative syntaxes. > > Everything else might produce more harm than blessing. > > Concerning the duration of the working group, I think that the group should > only work for 1 year. With any longer duration, the harm done by the > unstableness resulting from the working group will be bigger than the > benefits of having tidied-up specs. > > Also having such a short duration reduces the potential scope of the working > group and helps to stick to the things that really matter. Yes, yes, yes! I'll also note that the HTML5 effort started out with (AFAICT) similar ideals, but somehow seems to have evolved into a messy feature-fest. I'd suggest that any charter will need to have real teeth to ensure this can't happen (or appear to happen). #g
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 10:40:41 UTC