- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 00:32:47 -0400
- To: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I was looking over the results of the survey we did 2.5 years ago, as part of chartering this group. One of the questions was a free-form 'What do you dislike about RDF?'. I've read the responses before, but never tried to summarize them. This time I tried to code them all with what pain points they mentioned. The top ones (and how many people mentioned it as one of their dislikes) were: 45 RDF/XML 24 Problems with Reification 16 Confusion/problems with Collections/Containers 9 Quality/Style of W3C RDF Documents 9 It all seems too complex 8 Tools need to be better 7 BNodes are a problem 6 Allow literal subjects and/or blank node predicates 6 Datatypes aren't very nice 5 How do we find vocabularies? The survey went on to ask about some specific things we were thinking about doing, and for each one it asked several questions. One was 'How much will this benefit the community?' -- answered on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Here are the results with the average score and the number of people who scored in 4 or 5 (sorted by that second number): Add Core Support for Working With Multiple Graphs 4.36 95 people Create Standards for Deployment of Linked Data 4.25 92 people Make Turtle a W3C Standard 4.04 81 people Create a Standard JSON RDF Syntax 4.09 79 people Indicate Which RDF Features Are No Longer Best Practice 3.83 75 people Make Well-Known Repairs To The Specification Text 3.83 57 people Define Some Useful Similarity/Equivalence Properties 3.52 58 people Extend RDF/XML 2.94 42 people Define a Namespace Packaging Mechanism 3.49 41 people Explain How to Determine What a URI Means 3.19 40 people Revise Semantics for Blank Nodes 2.99 39 people Improve Integration with Syndication Systems (Atom) 3.18 35 people Change RDF Semantics to Plain Data (SPARQL) Style 2.73 22 people Allow Literals as Subjects 2.27 20 people The data is all here: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/rdf-2010/results -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 04:33:04 UTC