- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:37:33 -0500
- To: Masahide Kanzaki <post@kanzaki.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-calendar@w3.org
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 10:23, Masahide Kanzaki wrote: > At 9:34 AM -0500 04.4.15, Dan Connolly wrote: > >Nobody should be thinking that this namespace is completely stable. > > > >Our policy is... > > > >" > > * we announce all changes to the schema www-rdf-calendar > > * if anyone screams, within a week or so, we'll back out the > > changes (for further discussion)" > > I understand what you mean, and some minor changes might be fine. Yes, it's a question of what's "minor" and so on. > But this > is not a laboratory test tube project. There are existing systems that > expect the current schema such as eventSherpa. I've tried to introduce > RDFical, and generated certain amount of RDFical data. Yes, and I think that's great. > It's not happy to > make those invalid and make people think that RDFical is > unreliable/unusable. I understand the costs of change. I also understand the costs of maintaining multiple versions, and I understand the cost of keeping a design fixed when it could have been improved. I have evaulated all that, and I am reasonably confident that the new timezone design is worthwhile. But I can understand if you (or anybody else) come to a different conclusion. > >If you don't think this change is a sufficient improvement to merit > >the cost of change, please say so. > > I do not disagree with changes and improvements. Just do not want to make > existing RDFical invalid. Is there any way to allow but obsolete current > form (e.g. use new property names for new idea) ? Hmm... I don't know. Nothing occurs to me just now, but I can imagine that somebody might come up with a design that does that. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 12:36:50 UTC