Re: blank slate

I share some of Karen's concerns.

At Syapse we are integrating our RDF based systems with legacy systems such as HL7 systems.
The engineers dealing with the legacy systems don't think RDF, don't know RDF, they don't want to know RDF.
They don't think open world or closed world, etc.

Given that the legacy system (like many legacy systems) is (overly?) complicated we don't want to add a layer of over-complication of our own; however we do want to have expressive power to deal with the complications in the patterns if that is appropriate.

I feel that this use case (HL7/RDF integration) shares some of the issues that Karen seems concerned about: the pattern language is being used to communicate with engineers who are not RDF literate, and do not want to be.

Jeremy



On Aug 4, 2014, at 1:48 PM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 3 Aug 2014 at 17:19, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Actually, the "compact, human readable syntax" is what I am most
>> interested in. It may need to be built on top of what the group
>> develops, but without it, the community I am most interested in will not
>> be able to participate, as we will have few members with the technical
>> skills to express constraints in something resembling, for example, a
>> complex SPARQL query.
>> 
>> I posted a reply to this thread that no one has replied to, so it is
>> sitting there sadly orphaned. Briefly, what I do not see anywhere in
>> this conversation any mention of WHO is the target of this
>> "deliverable".
> 
> That's indeed a very important question that has, IMO as well, been mostly ignored so far.
> 
> 
>> There is a great deal of discussion of the technology but
>> almost none of the real world in which it will operate, and zero
>> discussion of the target skill set of the intended implementers. As so
>> often seems to happen in standards work, the skill set of the members of
>> the standards group is assumed as the target skill set of all users.
> 
> Since this group is working on RDF validation and not JSON or XML validation, I think it is fair to assume at least some knowledge of RDF. As such, I think a "compact, human readable RDF-based syntax" is a very reasonable thing. I'm not too much a fan of introducing yet another (serialization) format/syntax.
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 00:06:57 UTC