W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

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

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:42:38 +0100
Message-ID: <4C2E4F3E.7050706@webr3.org>
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Frank van Harmelen wrote:
> As someone who wasn't at the workshop, but who has been following it
> closely, I'm amazed by the lack of social intelligence in the debate.
> 
> Not all the worlds' problems can be solved by writing more specifications,
> and getting Linked Open Data widely adopted is an example.
> 
> Yes, there are some useful additions & changes to be made to RDF that have
> real use-cases screaming for them (and people already implementing 
> because they need them).
> The top 7 at [1] is a good list of these,
> and for all the other items on that list (including "literals as 
> subjects", c'mon!), social intelligence should prevail over technical 
> arguments, no matter how correct they are.
> 
> I'm in full agreement with Richard Cyganiak, Dan Brickley, Ian Davis, 
> Benjamin Nowack and others, summed up by the following quotes from 
> different messages in this thread:
> 
> Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com>
>>> Our problem is not lack of features (native literal subjects? 
>>> c'mon!). It is identifying the individual user stories in our broad 
>>> community and
>>> marketing respective solution bundles. The RDFa and LOD folks have
>>> demonstrated that this is possible.
> 
> Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
>> Quite right.
>>
>> But telling those user stories and marketing the solution bundles is  
>> not something that can realistically be done via the medium of *specs*.
> 
> Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com>
>  > We suffer from spec obesity, badly.
> ..
>> RDF "Next Steps" should be all about scoped learning material and 
>> deployment. There were several workshop submissions (e.g. by Jeremy, 
>> Lee, and Richard) that mentioned this issue, but the workshop outcome 
>> seems to be purely technical. Too bad.
> 
> Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
>> Spend the money on a W3C-license javascript SPARQL engine,
>> or on fixing and documenting and test suiting what's out there
>> already. And whatever's left on rewriting it in Ruby, Scale, Lua ...
> 
> Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
>> 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. 
> 
> As much as I admire Pat <phayes@ihmc.us> I couldn't disagree more with his:
> 
>> But after reading the results of the straw poll [1], part of me
>> wants to completely forget about RDF,  never think about an ontology or a
>> logic ever again.
> 
> Pat, you may be technically correct, but I think you are socially 
> completely wrong on this one. You/we have to choose between an imperfect 
> spec that's on its way to being widely used, or one that shines in 
> splendid isolation.

because you can't have both

> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/rdf-work-items/table
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 20:43:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:21 UTC