- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 18:38:51 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 4 May 2012, at 18:09, David Booth wrote: >> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/rdf-2010/results#xg13 >> >> Out of 127 respondents, 14 thought that removing the restriction would >> benefit them or their organization, while 59 thought it would harm >> them or their organization. > > Hold on, I think you may be misreading those results. Remember, the 1-5 > scale in that survey was *not* "1=very harmful ... 5=very helpful". The > scale was "1=not at all important ... 5=very important": > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/rdf-2010/results#xq13 Hm, what you quote there is the scale for a different question. I looked in the survey results when writing the message, and the link to the scale for the “literals as subjects” question is broken, so I used my memory. I might be wrong and you might be right. Not that this changes all that much. It's still the least popular of all proposed changes, and the comments are overwhelmingly negative. > Fortunately (IMO) at > least some of the tools have gone in this direction already. Maybe I > just have to wait longer before pushing for formal endorsement. Or lobby your favourite tool vendor. Or submit a patch to Jena. Or tell the world about the awesome things you can do with literals as subjects. Or write your own draft spec for “LDF” (Literal Description Framework). There are many ways to have an impact on the community. Best, Richard
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 17:39:31 UTC