- From: Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:31:17 -0400
- To: HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Reposting to the list: > >>> Honestly, I read this stuff and I'm thinking that you aren't listening > >>> to what you are saying and applying even a minimal amount of critical > >>> analysis to relate working with RDF to any other kind of skilled > >>> labor. > >> > >> Most skilled workers want to achieve acceptable results with minimum > >> effort. I just don't see prevention of stale identifiers being high on > >> the list of priorities for most software developers. > > > > No, because their incentives are not aligned with making the global > > web of data really work. But for consumers of this information it is a > > high priority. > > The consumers that I know clearly prefer meaningful ids. The > consumers I know learn RDF by downloading an XML/RDF file, opening it > with WordPad, and then digging their way through it with paper and > pencil. I suppose the consumers you know are very different. But > anyway, I still don't get what it is that does not work due to > meaningful ids. It's probably not unlike how biologists prefer to use spreadsheets. And for this: http://www.sysmo-db.org/rightfield simple tools can make a world of difference in terms of adoption and productivity with an underlying technology. I think the core problem is that simple (easy to use with no training) tools are either not well known or just aren't where they need to be to manage rdf/owl content (which is also non-trivial in terms of HCI). That people want to work with URIs directly (as opposed to the semantic content they offer) is a clear symptom of this observation. Perhaps the HCLS should consider forming a tooling group - so as to make strides in this direction. Best, m.
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 13:31:06 UTC