W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Issue rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr (was Re: SYNTAX: RDF/XML Syntax WD work )

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:09:41 +0100
Message-ID: <3BCF1AE5.6060008@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
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 

We should resist the temptation to fix things that we don't like but are not 
really broken.  Lets save those for rdf 2.

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2001 14:14:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC