- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:17:25 +0100
- To: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: "Hammond, Tony" <t.hammond@nature.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, public-lod@w3.org, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk>
2009/12/14 Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>: > In message <C74BADC3.20683%t.hammond@nature.com>, "Hammond, Tony" > <t.hammond@nature.com> writes >> >> Normal developers will always want simple. > > Surely what normal developers actually want are simple commands whereby data > can be streamed in, and become available programmatically within their > chosen development environment, without any further effort on their part? To my mind that's very well put. But I would argue against that a cost/benefit case - ok, it's programming hell, but it doubles your salary - would any of us complain? > Personally I don't see how providing a format which is easier for humans to > read helps to achieve this. Do normal developers like writing text parsers > so much? I don't know about you, but anything that helps avoiding writing parsers is honey to me. > Give 'em RDF and tell them to develop better toolsets ... Why not? > Come to that, RDF-to-JSON conversion could be a downstream service that > someone else offers. You don't have to do it all. I am a bit annoyed we haven't got much pluggability between systems yet, but strongly believe this is the right track. Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 22:18:02 UTC