- 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