Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]

Nathan,

My concern isn't all that much about graph literals, although I don't see the evidence for them being needed. I react to the justification you used: that we should define them, because if we don't, then multiple others might define them in incompatible ways.

As I said earlier, that's backwards: Only if there already were multiple incompatible definitions or implementations, then we'd have a job to do. Your reasoning made into a general principle would be damaging to the WG, because it would divert scarce WG resources from actual pressing interoperability issues to speculative interoperability issues that may well never arise.

Just one more inline comment:

On 5 Mar 2011, at 20:43, Nathan wrote:
> if you've got a stack of software which has been heavily invested in and deployed, centred around a format which can't / doesn't support these features, it's hardly surprising their use isn't widespread, it also makes you wonder why these things were created, if the they aren't needed by someone..

Software is created because the developer thought someone would need it. He or she can be wrong. Products fail all the time, and they often fail because they don't meet user needs, are poorly executed, or poorly marketed. Contrary to what you say, the IT world is full of examples of successful products that are based on incompatible vendor extensions to some standard (for better or worse). Often it's these products that drive further development of the standard.

Best,
Richard



> 
>> Nathan, you think that you know what people need. You think that you can predict the future. To you it's obvious that if only we standardized X, then RDF adoption would skyrocket. But I don't trust your judgement on this, nor anyone else's crystal ball gazing. I believe that our work in this WG should be guided by the available deployment+uptake experience: implementations with happy users; companies that have put their money where their mouth is; the millions of files that actually have been put on the Web; the threads on jena-dev or Semantic Overflow where dozens and dozens of RDF newbies stumble over the same problems.
> 
> Not quite sure what to say to that, but I'll confirm that I don't think I know what people need, can't predict the future, and afaict haven't claimed that I know any secret that would make RDF adoption skyrocket. I'm not sure what prompted the personal comments about me directly, but apologies for anything I may have said out of turn Richard, didn't mean to offend.
> 
> There's a whole list of things that /could/ be in RDF, and if somebody will use them, and they don't conflict with other features, then my personal view is, let's have them, named graphs, quoted graphs, graph literals, literal subjects, bnode predicates, changes of scope for bnode identifiers (to the graph name no less!), alignment of plain literals/xsd:string, alignment of sparql,n3,turtle syntax, the list goes on. I understand the point of standardization (tis why I'm here), of constraining things so users get expected functionality, and of leaving enough scope for, and considering, evolution. I'll firmly advocate all of these things (and do what work I can), whether it's on behalf of somebody else, or myself (i.e. things you want/need, things others do, and things I do), and for each one that makes it in to the rec, I'll give a little cheer.
> 
> None of these things are magic keys which will make RDF adoption skyrocket - if that's the goal let's just clump together and pay some "rock-star devs" to plug the hell out of RDF - but each of these features will make my days of working with RDF (what few there are now) easier, will clean something up, or just makes sense.
> 
>> We have a charter that cuts out the work for us. Most of it is rather boring -- agreeing on terminology and syntax; updating RFC references; sorting out shitty details like the scope of blank nodes and so on.
> 
> Ack, perhaps I'm a bit of a freak, bar the terminology bit, I rather like all those shitty details :)
> 
>> Can we please just do that stuff and leave the crystal balls over on semantic-web or public-lod?
> 
> Indeed, can we leave our normal balls there too?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan

Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 22:21:43 UTC