Re: dogfood, was Re: fyi RDF dislikes, priorities

On 5/17/13 12:03 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> [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
>
>

Is there a URL for locating the 2-star Linked Data?

-- 

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