Who is responsible for working with the W3C RDF WG to produce an RDF.next with some in-scope way to accomplish the goal?
Put another way, if that WG removes reification from the next version of RDF, and no alternative in .next works, it sounds like our choices are to (1) remove link labels and other cases currently using reification from future specifications/iterations of existing specs (presumably becomes implementation extension), (2) take a risk in every implementation to continue using reification as today, or (3) invent-new within OSLC ...and potentially in parallel with any of those 3, engage with the W3C RDF WG to fill the gap with something concrete. Is this something that we should be asking for help from the Steering Committee on, if the W3C WG does not put something into RDF.next at Last Call? Presumably if the community as a whole (proxied via the SC) were to ask the W3C for help, that would carry more weight than individual members doing so. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario [email protected] wrote on 06/26/2012 02:28:53 PM: > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > To: [email protected] > Date: 06/26/2012 02:34 PM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Rethinking link labels without reified statements > Sent by: [email protected] > > Based on review on the mailing list and at last Core WG call, I consider > this to be closed with no changes. Just summarizing with the following > observation: > > 1. We are not using anything that is really being scoped out of the new > work by W3C RDF WG, for example we only use rdf:* class/predicates and > blank nodes. > 2. There really isn't an acceptable alternative. Alternatives require us > to reach a similar conclusion to what is defined using reification. > > I will continue to track RDF WG activity with reification with this usage > in mind. > > Thanks, > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
