- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:33:23 +0100
- To: Orion Adrian <oadrian@hotmail.com>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Orion Adrian wrote: > On another point. Breaking backwards compatability is often a good idea. > Cleaning up a design is often as important as extending it. XHTML 1.1 > and HTML 4.01 are good specs in that regard. > RDF, OWL, XML Schema are also specs that need to cull back and rethink. Catching up on the QA list after a bit I found this thread ... Picking up on your sense of having been ignored, yet at the same time not having ideas about specifically RDF and OWL, for both of which I share collective responsibility. In the W3C, at least the parts I have seen, if you want to be heard you have to make comments on the documents during WD stage. It is best to make your comments early and then make them again at last call if they haven't been addressed to your satisfaction. Every W3C Working Draft has an e-mail address for comments. Your thoughts on OWL and RDF were ignored because you did not express them using this mechanism. === Your comments about a single vision are interesting with respect to OWL: it really was two distinct visions being hammered together; and the vision of by far the majority of the group (in my subjective opinion) was that getting the two things to work together (Description Logics and RDF) was worth the pretty ugly compromises that appear in section 4 of the OWL Semantics. (Sections 2 and 3 are a DL vision, section 5 an RDF vision, section 4 is the seam). We realized that this was deeply problematic from the point of view of a clean design, but we ended up with four independent implementations of section 4 during CR I am increasing believing in the value of committees myself. Jeremy
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2004 16:33:46 UTC