[trimming cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:19, Patrick Durusau wrote:
As I say in another post, I am not suggesting I have an alternative
but am suggesting that we broaden the conversation to more than "we
have invested so much so we have to be right" sort of reasoning.
The argument that Ian and various other vendors made in this thread is
not:
"We have invested so much that we can't afford to be wrong."
The argument is:
"We have invested so much that we want to see a clear potential
benefit to any spec changes."
And the concrete change discussed in this thread fails this test.
Regarding your broader point that RDF may not need sufficient user
requirements: This is possible, but the rational response to this
possibility is to explore alternatives (possibly including mutations
of RDF) and test them against user needs to see if they fare better.
Such work can not be realistically done within W3C for obvious
reasons. It has to be done outside W3C by the community.
Unlike you, both Dan and Ian have contributed concrete proposals for
directions of such exploration.
Best,
Richard
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
patr...@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
