- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 21:07:01 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 05/19/2013 08:19 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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?
>
Yes, about 20 lines up. Repeating:
"The data is all here: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/rdf-2010/results"
Of course I know 2-star data (in this case html tables) is annoying and
offends the sensibilities. I apologize for that.
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 01:07:11 UTC