- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 15:01:19 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 05/17/2013 01:53 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > 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. >
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 19:01:31 UTC