Re: report of the October meeting

Hi Melvin,

> Got it.  My use of the term "hobby project" was not in any way designed to put down code quality or volunteer work.

Sure, and I understood it that way. Despite its performance, N3.js is indeed volunteer work.
However, it shows that such side projects can have better metrics than fully paid projects,
so it might be beneficial to look at synergies between both, i.e., having a community of developers.

> So I was just saying MIT has now got funding to hire a couple of full time people in this area, which wasnt the case before.  The main thing I wanted to imply is that we're a small team with limited time, compared with huge projects such as ubuntu etc.  

That's right, which is why I hope that the MIT people working on this join the rdfjs mailing list.
Instead of making an MIT (or any other) library, we could all together make something nicer.

> Standardization can be very valuable, but can also take up a good chunk of time.  Looking at RDF Interfaces it's been improving, but over a number of years, rather than, a number of months.  

Yeah, we shouldn't overdo the standardization.
Just a spec that says: this is how you do triples (and other low-level things).
I'm thinking a few months a most. (I probably shouldn't make predictions.)

> There's not really that many ways to do quads if we start with RDF 1.0.

Many different JavaScript/RDF libraries unfortunately prove you wrong ;-)

> JSON LD is a different kind of parsing problem, because it requires an IO operation for the @context, so is asynchronous.  

Interesting point for the Task Force.
My personal opinion here is that everything should be asynchronous/streaming by default:
a) we probably don't want different parser interfaces for different content types
b) we might want to parse files larger than main memory
=> Something to be discussed there.

Best,

Ruben

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 12:07:32 UTC