- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:09:41 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dave Beckett wrote: > Both of these answers changes what the existing M&S says but it is > something that hardly anyone used/uses. For the latter reason, I did > suggest deleting it in my original text but I'm happy with #1, #2 above. Thanks for calling this out Dave. I'd like to see a general policy that proposals that change what M&S says, or the common interpretation of what it says, are specifically highlighted. It would be easier to just say, we are not changing the current spec, but we already have precedent, aboutEachPrefix, that we will change something if we feel there are very strong reasons to do so. I haven't seen any such case made for this change. The barrier for making changes is set very much higher than for 'clarifications'. A strong case must be made that the change is necessary. There must be a strong call from the community to make the change. And we must be sure we have evidence of how existing code and data and will be affected. And there must be good reason why it cannot wait till we have a more relaxed charter. We should resist the temptation to fix things that we don't like but are not really broken. Lets save those for rdf 2. Brian
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2001 14:14:11 UTC