Re: fyi RDF dislikes, priorities

On 5/16/13 9:32 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
Do you have an RDF rendition of this data anywhere? If not, do you have 
an XML dump as per issues tracking?

If RDF is so important to the W3C, it would be wise to dog-food much 
more, especially as this is how the world increasingly assess the 
utility of output from standards bodies and promoters of respective 
standards.  We really have to practice what we preach.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen