W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

Re: Querying reified statements

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:53:33 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20001213123813.02c08260@mail.gorge.net>
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 11:03 AM 12/13/00 -0800, Seth Russell wrote:
>Yes quadruples, or even ntupels

That something that doesn't exist ("greener grass just over there") is 
better than something that *works* right now seems a tad irrelevant.

At a panel in Brisbane I saw a bunch of people sort of good-naturedly chide 
Tim (who was there and may even have been amused) for not making hyperlinks 
all the great things they could be. Meanwhile we got several years of 
incredible use out of what *was* instead of continuing to wrangle about 
what *could be*.

I could be completely out of line, but the idea that using RDF as an 
internal means of indexing (which can be done and is being done as we 
speak) should be down-played as "not very useful" was what I was 
questioning. The alternatives to my using a qwerty keyboard that involve 
pen-based and voice-recognition systems have been "six months away" for 
thirty years and I just get a feeling that a similar thing just *might* be 
happening here. Without analysis, it's clear synthesis would be less 
effective, however (and I plead that that's what I meant by "but") the 
ratio seems askew.

The RDF Rec is almost two years old - it may not point to a perfect or even 
elegant solution but our disagreement centers only on the "not very useful" 
part. And you may very well be right, but I'd like to try unless there's 
something really "broke" that needs fixing.

If that's the case, bring it on!

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2000 15:53:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT