- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, nathan@webr3.org, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
David Booth wrote: > > I agree, but at the W3C RDF Next Steps workshop over the weekend, I was > surprised to find that there was substantial sentiment *against* having > literals as subjects. A straw poll showed that of those at the > workshop, this is how people felt about having an RDF working group > charter include literals as subjects: > http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-rdfn-minutes.html > > Charter MUST include: 0 > Charter SHOULD include: 1 > Charter MAY include: 6 > Charter MUST NOT include: 12 > > > I was one of the "MUST NOT"s to my surprise. Here are the reasons I voted this way: - it will mess up RDF/XML - RDF/XML is horrid but we had consensus that it was unfixable - i.e. we need to live with it. - however little work the WG does is too much in terms of the real obstacles to SW success (following Dan from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Mar/0196.html [[ What I feel is missing (despite the *millions*) that has been thrown at the Semantic Web brand, is the boring slog of getting the base tools and software polished. ]] ). In particular my view is that literals as subjects is not part of the problem to be solved. - this is a purists' desire not a practical obstacle. No value-adding argument made for a change of this magnitude. It's a bug. Fixing it may cost $0.5M to $1M say, maybe more. I don't see that much return. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 20:19:19 UTC