W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Literals as subjects in Turtle (but not in the RDF model) [was: Inverses of RDF and RDFS predicates]

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 13:39:13 -0400
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1336153153.2232.27212.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Hi Dave,

On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 10:52 -0400, David Wood wrote:
> Hi all,
> Without trying to make an http-range-14 discussion out of this
> (because we already have one), I'll agree with Richard on this.  It is
> quite important to recognize the various use cases people have for RDF
> and that they aren't all served by the changes that may be handy for
> those conducting inferencing.

. . . or those who want to avoid the inference required by the
owl:sameAs workaround or those who want to avoid redundant inverse
> Nor will the market follow the WG if we "put them on notice".  That's
> just not how standards work.

I guess "putting them on notice" was a bad way of phrasing it.  Sorry!
Maybe "Notice of proposed rule change" would have been better, as that
seems to be the term used by US government agencies.

Anyway, I've withdrawn my suggestion to remove this restriction from
Turtle, so I think we can move on.

Thanks for all your comments, Dave, Richard and others, and thanks also
for all your work on this!

Best wishes,

> Regards,
> Dave
> On May 4, 2012, at 10:35, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > Since you're presenting this as some sort of conspiracy between a
> backward WG and lazy tool makers, it's worth re-reading the responses
> to the community survey that W3C did to determine this WG's
> priorities, and that received 127 responses. Among all the proposed
> work item, this one got by far the most negative response:
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/rdf-2010/results#xg13
> > 
> > On 4 May 2012, at 14:13, David Booth wrote:
> >> BTW, this restriction is not just "silly" in an
> >> aesthetically-displeasing-but-harmless kind of way.  It is *harmful*
> > 
> > Out of 127 respondents, 14 thought that removing the restriction
> would benefit them or their organization, while 59 thought it would
> harm them or their organization.
> > 
> >> In fact, I think it would be helpful for the WG to put tool makers on
> >> notice that this restriction is likely to be removed at some point in
> >> the future, and they should plan accordingly.  Otherwise, we would
> >> forever be stuck in a circular situation similar to what Nathan pointed
> >> out, that we can't remove this restriction from the tools because it's
> >> in the RDF standard, and we can't remove it from the RDF standard
> >> because it's in the tools.
> > 
> > If this was true, then we wouldn't have any tools with Turtle
> support or named graphs support or with support for aggregates in
> queries or with JSON results in the SPARQL protocol. All of these
> started out as independent proposals or vendor extensions, and
> multiple vendors picked them up without “being put on notice” by some
> WG. W3C eventually followed the herd and commenced work towards making
> them W3C RECs.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Richard

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 17:39:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:53 UTC