W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > October 2017

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 07:06:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC1Gg8QEpGtCHjFazSrcQ4yNzGyM5HwYbCzjoM06cSZ-aiasNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
Cc: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com> wrote:
> ...We have SPARQL parsers now, but at the time myself and others had to
> make those parsers with our bare hands. The point is that SPARQL won
> over superior alternatives, and that we can *still learn* from those
> alternatives even though they did not become widely deployed
> standards. SPARQL won not due to its technological superiority, but
> because of other factors such as easing the mental transition from
> SQL...

This is a narrow definition of "technological superiority." There is
an endless (and continuously growing) list of products --- VHS,
Windoze, etc --- that dominated because they satisfied market demands,
despite being clearly "inferior" in certain measures. Viewed as
*solutions*, these technologies can in retrospect be seen as superior,
because they satisfied a broader set of market requirements.

One could say the same of SPARQL, or any number of W3C recommendations
that exhibit consensus if not superior specifications over considered

John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director of Operations, The Rensselaer IDEA
Deputy Director, Web Science Research Center (RPI)
<http://idea.rpi.edu/> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Friday, 13 October 2017 11:06:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:22:44 UTC