RE: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

I'm a relative newcomer to this group, and not an expert in RDF, but I find
this thread interesting in the following way.
As a small business owner, please note that our product is technology, in
particular advanced technologies like ontologies and artificial intelligence
stuff.  Also note that we can have a bad habit of jumping straight into
designing a product, and when we do that, our worst fears can sometimes be
realized: a product designed by engineers for engineers, not a product
designed for those using the product.
So given this context I got confused about what the discussion was about.
What are the unfulfilled needs with RDF?  What are the complaints, what are
users unhappy about?  The technology discussion (gee whiz) may be great, but
what about how it solves a problem for real-world applications (so what)?
Maybe I'm just a newbie who doesn't yet understand.
So to demonstrate, at the risk of alienating, I'll take the devil's advocate
position, as follows.  I'll do this because I can say from first hand
experience this is what any organization or business in the real world is up
against.
Why bother with RDF 2.0?
Frankly, for us I have no interest in RDF either way.  It has no value.  Gee
whiz, but so what.
OK, so sell me on it.  Why should I have any interest in RDF 1.0, 2.0, or
X.0?
I am doing just fine with my own home-grown database.
Sell me on it.
Why RDF?  It's complex and difficult to use, and it's just one more expense
I have to bear, one more technology I have to train my staff on and learn
and adopt.  
What's the big deal with RDF 2.0 for me to go to all this trouble?

Again, being the devil's advocate, in my opinion, having had to answer these
kinds of questions, if the question can't be answered, then it may not be
worth going there.


George

-----Original Message-----
From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Damian Steer
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:51 AM
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Cc: Semantic Web at W3C
Subject: Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"


On 13 Jan 2010, at 16:00, Chris Welty wrote:
> 
> This discussion is happening in several places already, and we thought
this was the best place to house that discussion for now.

Do you have any further information on these discussions? What

There was a thread initiated by Sandro last year [1] (my reply [2]).

> A workshop on this subject is also in the planning, more news on that in a
week or two.
> 
> I suppose we don't really need to discuss whether we should investigate an
"RDF 2.0", but rather what kinds of requirements various RDF users have that
they would like to be considered (I'd like this thread to be less "+1" and
"-1" messages, and more "I'd like to see RDF support x...")

I echo Dave's response. Not sure tinkering is worth it.

Getting turtle and a json serialisation to rec would be nice.

Damian

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009Nov/0001.html>
[2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009Nov/0025.html>

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 14:24:44 UTC