Re: Re 2: Agenda for 19 Sep 2012

On 18 Sep 2012, at 22:40, David Wood wrote:
>> I would like some guidance on how far we are supposed to dumb down for the "casual" user, which I take it means the user who can't be bothered (or maybe hasn't the capacity) to actually read the specs.  
> There is clearly no reason to dumb down the specs for someone who won't read them.
> Writing specs for those who don't have the capacity is a (much) trickier problem, though.  Interop was necessary to ensure that very smart people who had TCP/IP implementations could work with each other.  A difference in interpretation is not necessarily the same as a lack of capacity.
> It is best to be clear in prose, brief in math and provide some non-normative examples.  *shrug*

TCP/IP is a very good example. I've used, and implemented things on top of TCP/IP many times, and even read a book on the subject, but never read any of the specs. If it's a requirement for users of RDF to read the model theory (I don't believe it is) then this WG is a waste of time.

If it's a requirement on developers of RDF storage engines, parsers etc, then that's fine, though I suspect authors of many systems in use today haven't read it. It's not written in especially engineer-friendly language*.

* I don't even think that's necessarily a problem - the SQL specs as a counter example are more engineer friendly, but consequently are extremely verbose, and it's hard to pin down the precise intention in some places.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 09:30:57 UTC