On the first day of the RDF Next Steps Workshop, we created a list of possible work items for a (hypothetical) new RDF Core Working Group. We included only items that had some supporters at the workshop, to argue on their behalf. On the second day, we discussed each of these items in breakouts and plenary session, and wrote up some details on a wiki page.
At the end of the second day, we did a quick show of hands about each item to see whether people thought a new WG charter should say the item must be done, should be done, may be done, or must not be done. Those numbers will be in the minutes and the final report, when they come out.
For now, I've produced this quick visualization of the numbers. I've merged "should" and "may" for simplicity, and sorted the items using these weights: must=3, should=2, may=1, must not=-3.
I gave new titles to each item, trying to make them more consistant and clear to people who were not at the workshop. Each one is a link to the actual workshop wiki page, where you can see the title used at the workshop, and the description, pros/cons, proposals, etc. Please don't assume my title for each work item captures its essense; follow the links.
-- Sandro Hawke, 6/28/2010
|Proposed Work Item||WG must do it||WG should/may do it||WG must not do it|
|Standardize Model for Graph Identification|
|Modify Semantics to Support Graph Identification|
|Switch to Improved Inference Rules|
|Apply Fixes to Known Spec Errors|
|Standardize a JSON RDF Syntax|
|Make Turtle a W3C Standard|
|Add Graphs to Turtle|
|Add Graphs to RDF/XML|
|Revise Blank Node Semantics|
|Specifiy Linked Data Style of RDF|
|Weakly Deprecate some RDF/XML Features|
|Define alternatives to owl:sameAs|
|Weakly Deprecate some Data Model Feature|
|Weakly Deprecate some RDF Semantics Features|
|Have Explicit Support for Annotations|
|Align RDF Semantics with SPARQL|
|Improve rdf:List Support in RDF/XML|
|Explain How to Determine What a URI Means|
|Allow Literals as Subjects|