- From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 07:06:32 -0400
- 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 alternatives. -- 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