fyi RDF dislikes, priorities

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