> > (But then, I also contend that this whole concept should be moved out of >> RDF into OWL.) >> > > While as a technical issue this might make sense, as an operational issue > it is a very bad idea. I don't see that any backwards incompatible change to > RDF would justify the cost in fixing tooling built to the current > specifications, and making such a change would be damaging to the reputation > of the W3Cs standards-making efforts. > I'm not going to belabor this point here, but I highly encourage anybody who cares about how humans and computers deal with data to consider this claim carefully. I suggest that the cost of changing anything about the *very* small existing installed base of RDF software, up to and including scrapping the whole standard and everything built on it and starting over, would be wildly trivial compared to the cost of adopting RDF for even a tiny fraction of the huge existing global installed base of non-RDF data software. And I very much hope that the "reputation" of the W3C doesn't rest on refusing to change a standard that, in global terms, more or less nobody has yet adopted.
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 23:33:19 UTC