W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:09:52 +0100
To: (wrong string) ří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-id: <201001202209.53266.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
On Wednesday 20. January 2010 12:07:09 you wrote:
> > There is no moving target, and there hasn't been for many, many years.
> > Even  so, important programming languages doesn't even have a parser
> > for the most basic formats, much less a well developed toolchain.
> 
> If the specification is changed, there is moving target. 

Well, that specs change every 10 years or so, even 6 years, doesn't really 
put any extra burden on developers, it doesn't take that much work to 
create libraries. In my opinion, it seems very unlikely that this is the 
reason why tools aren't as good and widespread as we'd like to see.

> Now this reminds me of another thing I found bothersome - why wasn't
> SPARQL defined as syntax independent as an ontology? 

Dunno, but partly I think people wanted something that had the look and 
feel of SQL. The template and pattern could of course be done differently. 
I myself are quite content with the current situation, and I think crying 
over spilt milk helps nobody.

> I agree, but this is more work for common developers, to pass on their
> knowledge and create RDF cookbooks, then for standardization group

True, but this is more than a didactic problem, it is a question whether 
the spec does what developers need or feel like doing.
 
Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
kjetil@kjernsmo.net
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 21:10:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:05 UTC