- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:07:18 +0100
- To: "Ruben Verborgh (UGent-imec)" <Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+aNwJx3mh01FVQnaeDefWZEqjdyjtO2D4JPYdr8QuhDw@mail.gmail.com>
čt 16. 1. 2025 v 15:32 odesílatel Ruben Verborgh (UGent-imec) < Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be> napsal: > Dear all, > > The Semantic Web community aims to build systems with semantic > interoperability. > > As many of us have probably experienced at some point, convincing others > that RDF is a great fit for a particular use case, can sometimes be tricky. > However, we always have the promise of long-term interoperability as a key > argument. > > Recently, I became aware that the upcoming RDF 1.2 standards might update > the existing definition of text/turtle and others. > For those interested, the technical discussion is happening at > https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/141 > > However, there is potentially a larger strategic consideration that > concerns all of us. > If we arrive at a situation where two systems that both indicate to accept > text/turtle, cannot talk to each other, we have a massive reputation > problem. > How can we claim semantic interoperability, if we do not have explicit > syntactical interoperability? > > I fear this adds brittleness to RDF-based systems, to the extent that it > might cause people to conclude “RDF doesn’t work”. > And I’d be inclined to actually agreeing with them, rather than attempting > a conversation about RDF 1.1 versus 1.2 details, > while selling them on RDF was the hard thing in the first place. It > endangers the credibility of our entire technology stack, in my opinion. > > I’m not looking to add pressure on the WG or the technical side of the > argument. > Rather, I’m interested in your opinions on whether the strategic and > reputational risk is as big as I perceive it, > and hopefully to find people who can defuse my arguments and worries. > > Thanks in advance, > > Ruben > I have always wondered whether or not RDF 1.2 involved breaking changes, and whether it might have been called RDF 2.0. > -- > Ruben Verborgh (they/them) > Professor of Decentralized Web Technology > IDLab, Ghent University – imec > https://ruben.verborgh.org/ – @RubenVerborgh > >
Received on Friday, 17 January 2025 17:07:36 UTC