- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:00:34 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- cc: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Jim Hendler wrote:
> If we feel that the only way is to ask for changes in RDF, that is
> out of our charter, but I can go to the semantic web coordination
> group and extend our request for discussion and possible rechartering
> of one of the two SW WGs (us or RDF Core) or for a special combined
> group to work the issue.
One think I'd be quite happy to see come out of this (and of RDFCore) is
design input for an RDF2 ("RDF-N", whatever...) specification. RDF 1.0 was
kept pretty simple, and it isn't suprising that we're pushing at the
limits of what we can get done with such a simple representational system.
I don't think it's the current work of RDFCore or WebOnt to do an "RDF 2",
but we certainly could start putting together a (use-cases driven) case
for why W3C might want to charter such work in the future. If that story
can be told in terms of use cases that arise from other areas of
W3C work (eg. CC/PP, Web Services, fomalisation of XML schema languages
etc.) so much the better.
Dan
--
mailto:danbri@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 17:00:37 UTC