W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:49:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4C2D9A11.6000903@webr3.org>
CC: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Nathan wrote:
> Ian Davis wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>>> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but 
>>> not
>>> from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by 
>>> those
>>> who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your 
>>> company took
>>> a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have 
>>> implemented a
>>> better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects 
>>> internally in
>>> the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for there 
>>> to be
>>> no further change for the rest of the world and for all future time. Who
>>> knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this 
>>> change is
>>> made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now?
>>>
>>
>> I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment in
>> the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level
>> change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and
>> deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling
>> with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5
>> years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our
>> investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of us
>> also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology
>> direction.
>>
>> I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general
>> logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move
>> towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression
>> in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3
>> implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have
>> with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between
>> them)
> 
> Sounds good, doesn't break anything for anybody, and anybody who adopts 
> N3 get's all the deployed RDF goodness too! - from what Pat says it 
> seems RDF Semantics supports most of N3 apart from a few syntax bits and 
> the notable graph literals - perhaps an idea to try and get graph 
> literals in to the RDF Semantics before we hit this again in 2020 and 
> wonder why the then well supported N3 doesn't have them :)

(at RDF Semantic level..

> my how this has came full circle,
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 07:50:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:28 UTC