Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

On Jan 18, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:

> Re adoption, basically I can't really point most hackers or
> implementers at the RDF specs without terrifying them (yes, syntax
> matters). A lot of them get overwhelmed - so when explaining RDF for
> the first time, to be honest I tend to point them at TimBL's N3
> tutorial [1] and *then* the specs.
> A simplification of the current specs is needed, with the things
> everyone uses (i.e. named graphs) added into the spec, with things
> like bags and list dropped. I also would like to have a decent way to
> express ordered lists in RDF and a clearly blessed (i.e. Turtle)
> syntax, along with JSON and Atom serializations. I think this is
> important for the future of RDF - new apps are great, but we need more
> programmers, and giving the specs a spring-cleaning would help.

Well, you need tutorials/ introductions/ RDF-for-Dummies stuff. That  
is being written, but it s not what should be in a spec, right?


> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Kjetil Kjernsmo  
> <> wrote:
>> All,
>> Like some others, I think the adoption problem is not solved by  
>> another
>> spec, but by actually writing useful stuff. Still, I think there  
>> are things
>> that should be fixed, but relatively minor things. I'm +1 on stuff  
>> like
>> graph naming, kill bag, rec on serialisations, etc, but let me also  
>> bring
>> forward one little thing that is of major importance: Units.
> +1. This is a major problem - one that also haunts XML Schema
> Data-types. Jen Tennison has some excellent work in this area [1].
> Perhaps extensible data-typing is what is needed?
> [1]
> [2]
>> There are no good ways to express the units of numbers in RDF. Yet,  
>> most
>> numbers out there are expressed with units. You could do it with  
>> datatype
>> URIs, but datatypes are orthogonal to units. You could do it with  
>> some
>> hacks, people have been doing that, but it quickly gets complicated  
>> and far
>> from ideal. We really need a simple way to express units, and ways  
>> to make
>> it possible for agents to convert numbers between different units.
>> Concrete example: Lets use DBPedia to find aircrafts with a certain  
>> maximum
>> take-off-weight that can take off from airfields with a certain  
>> maximum
>> runway length. All the data is on Wikipedia, and writing the SPARQL  
>> query
>> should be easy (actually doing it is left as an exercise to the  
>> reader ;-)
>> ).
>> But it can't be done, at least not without a lot of painful hacking  
>> on the
>> client side, partly because not all the data is in DBPedia  
>> (notably, the
>> take-off-run when the aircraft is fully loaded i.e. at MTOW), but
>> importantly because of the units used, see e.g.:
>> where the numbers are dimensionless, and the unit is in the  
>> property, e.g.:
>> dbpprop:r1LengthF, while the MTOW is expressed like this:
>> dbpprop:maxTakeoffWeightMain    "20,200 lb"@en ;
>> for
>> So, this is actually pretty useless. You cannot do the stuff that  
>> Linked
>> Data should be good at with this.
>> So, you could say that this could be done Right and Consistently,  
>> whatever
>> Right may be, but when we, as a community (DBPedia is our community
>> project, right) has failed to do it Right, I would blame it on that  
>> it is
>> too hard to do Right.
>> Not only is this important for everyday applications, it is also
>> indispensable for most scientific applications. So, that's my main
>> requirement.
>> Cheers,
>> Kjetil
>> --
>> Kjetil Kjernsmo

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile

Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 17:01:42 UTC