dogfood, was Re: fyi RDF dislikes, priorities

[sorry for previous null reply]

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.
>


Sorry, it's only 2-star linked data for now.

It's always hard to fund/motivate those additional stars, ya know.

(and giving people negative feedback because it's only two stars runs 
the risk getting zero stars.)

        -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 19:03:53 UTC