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

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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:45:24 +0100
Message-ID: <4C2E6C04.9010806@gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
The other economic-like argument is that there is only so much developer 
bandwidth in the world, whether open source or proprietary.  Do you 
think that bandwidth should be applied to changing current code to track 
changes, to making existing systems more usable, or (open source) on 
supporting users?


(Disclaimer: I'm sure some email somewhere makes the same point.  But.)

On 01/07/2010 4:38 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as
> subjects
> I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that
> assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal,
> and a node in a predicate position is a URI node.
> Of course, the "correct" thing to do is to allow all three node types in
> all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!)
> But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked for
> this issue.
> This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly)
> No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change.
> It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct
> Jeremy
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 14:31:18 UTC

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