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

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

From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 05:19:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4C2DAF13.6090701@durusau.net>
To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
CC: 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>, nathan@webr3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Ian,

On 7/2/2010 3:39 AM, 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)
>
>    
I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that 
investment by vendors =

1) technology meets need perceived by users, and

2) technology meets the need in a way acceptable to users

??

What early majority? How long did it take HTML to take off? Or XML for 
that matter, at least in its simpler forms?

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.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick


-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@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
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 09:19:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:07 UTC