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

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