RDF clarification versus RDF V2. Was: #rdfms-literals-as-resources in scope?

Sorry about zoning in late on all of this - I've been busy and out of
the office most of the week (thus, apologies but I'm not going to have
finished my action points by the telecon).

Anyway, Graham raised something which I'd like to underline:


On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Graham Klyne wrote:

> This may be a small stretch.  But I think Brian is right to resist scope
> creep by identifying any issue that can reasonably be deferred to V2.


There seem to be two directions that the WG can go (or follow both).
One, to produce fixes and clarifications ot the current spec (a primer
document, something for the mathematicians, etc.?); secondly, to build
RDF v2.

Now, I can understand that the latter activity seems more appealing, but
in order for the RDF community at large to take an RDF v2 seriously, I
think we need to demonstrate the ability to accurately fix the current
RDF in a timely fashion. Thus far, we seem to have been doing this
reasonably well.

There's no reason not to stop to discuss interesting issues on the way -
nor to flag up things (as has been done once or twice) as "for
consideration in V2" - (and even doing a lot of that consideration right
now) but* when considering fixes/changes/whatever to the current spec,
we need to consider if it's a necessary or flagrant violation of the
POLA** from an RDF user's point of view. If necessary, we make it as
sweet a pill as possible; if flagrant, chalk it up for V2.


jan

* this is my opinion only - I'm not a chair or anything important - just
how I see the immediate and future tasks fo the WG.

** "Principle of least astonisment" - not an absolute method of formal
proof, just (like Occam's razor) a guideline for good practice.

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk

Received on Friday, 6 July 2001 04:46:15 UTC