W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > February 2011

Re: "RDF Knowledge" (Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs)

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:12:19 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTike-QeyN8QsMKTESN88S=h0q4w-TFMZgaDbdWSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Kjetil,

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net> wrote:
> ..snip...
> Now, what complicates the matter is SPARQL 1.0s definition of what a graph URI
> identifies, and I must admit that I do not understand this fully myself, and it
> is a topic I'm trying to set aside time to fully understand.

Ok.

> The other thing that complicates the issue is the indirect graph identification, which I have
> felt all along is of limited utility and something that could inhibit adoption
> of the protocol.

Could you be a bit more specific on how it inhibits adoption? It's
using a URI mechanism (query components) that is ubiquitous in web
applications and the clients that interact with them.

> That's why everyone who I've shown this specification to has gone "huh? what
> does it really say?" You've taken something that's very familiar to thousands
> and thousands of developers, and scare them off by a bunch of definitions, which
> only serves to tell them that Semantic Web is a lot more complicated than they
> initially thought.

Ok.  But this is just anecdotal.  It would be more constructive if
there were specific examples and suggested changes.  I've been trying
(repeatedly and unsuccessfully) to elicit this.  Where substantive,
targeted feedback has been given in the past on this draft (from you,
for example), the Working Group has taken it into consideration and
changes have been made.

-- Chime
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 01:13:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 February 2011 01:13:13 GMT