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

AW: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals) +1 for Frank's comments

From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 09:40:47 +0200
To: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Cc: "'Frank van Harmelen'" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Message-ID: <020301cb1a83$0d96dda0$28c498e0$@de>
I cannot agree more with what Frank has said. 

I think that this working group can be very dangerous and destructive if it
is developing into a talk shop for ivory tower people.

Thus I think it is very critical to keep the duration and scope of the
working group as small as possible.

Concerning scope, I think that it is critical that the working group does
not try to develop/pioneer any new technologies, as recent W3C working
groups tried with mixed results. Thus I think the working group should only
do two things:

1. tidy up the specs and delete all stuff that has not been widely adopted
by the community over the last years
2. give an official blessing to widely used RDF data model extensions and
widely used alternative syntaxes.

Everything else might produce more harm than blessing.

Concerning the duration of the working group, I think that the group should
only work for 1 year. With any longer duration, the harm done by the
unstableness resulting from the working group will be bigger than the
benefits of having tidied-up specs. 

Also having such a short duration reduces the potential scope of the working
group and helps to stick to the things that really matter.

Just my 2 cents,

Chris
 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Frank van Harmelen
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Juli 2010 22:32
An: semantic-web@w3.org
Betreff: Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

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.

Frank.
    ----

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/rdf-work-items/table


-- 
Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl		http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh
Working on the Large Knowledge Collider	http://www.LarKC.eu
Received on Saturday, 3 July 2010 07:41:29 UTC

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