W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work?

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 08:23:49 -0700
Message-ID: <55045285.40200@kcoyle.net>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org

On 3/13/15 7:39 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> <If that's the case, it seems misled to justify using SPARQL on the
> basis that people are familiar with it. Clearly these aren't the same
> people. So, who is our target audience?>
> I meant people who would be implementing SHACL engines. I assume these
> will be software developers who know RDF very well.

"software developers who know RDF very well" is a pretty high bar. It is 
likely to preclude the kinds of home-grown or open source 
implementations that make technologies available and affordable to the 
mass of Web contributors. I work in an environment where any price but 
$0 for software is generally too much, and "development" is done by 
people who have figured out a bit of Python or Javascript, but whose 
main job is keeping the organization's system and network running with 
duct tape and chewing gum.

I have to make the comparison to HTML. HTML can be created by anyone who 
can figure out three or four things to put between <>. Really great HTML 
takes a lot more, but with non-great HTML anyone can put a document on 
the web. So, how do we do something similar for RDF? Something that can 
be used crudely by untrained folks who can copy from a simple example, 
and yet can be powerful in the hands of those software developers who 
know RDF well.

We've talked about templating, and templates will obviously be very 
useful, but not if the only engines are in professional-grade (and 
expensive) software. Again, looking at HTML, CSS is very powerful and 
very complex, so there are web page templates that one can use, but the 
"engine" that interprets this is the web browser, which is free 
software. Will it be possible to have RDF and SHACL in a browser? In 
common software like WordPress and Drupal and others? (And for all that 
schema.org has major problems, it is indeed being used in this way. 
Simplicity wins over complexity, warts and all.)


Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Saturday, 14 March 2015 15:24:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:17 UTC