- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:10:42 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- CC: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Ivan Mikhailov <imikhailov@openlinksw.com>
Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone, Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical communities in what's a mini revolution to be split over such matters. Valid arguments from all sides, technical and not - but things are really getting conflated here, at least from what I originally intended to put forward (probably past that and insignificant now). I respect that everybody has made large investments, time, money, data, deployment, training and so forth; but really, non of that need be wasted and nobody need change anything that has any impact on any investments thus far. My (personal) concern is really on the 10 year timeline (a bit shorter to be honest ;), there are limitations and things in RDF that do, 100%, prevent the web of data as a whole from moving forwards - however, nobody has to scrap anything. Simply, define a non serialization specific model that caters for N3 and RDF - then let each standard or serialization specify what it implements/supports - the point here, and I stress, isn't to break anything, but to open it up to innovation and allow the next decades worth of hacking to get going So RDF/XML is perhaps broken technically and doesn't support all these things, who cares? it obviously works just fine for a deployment of several billion triples, why change it? why not define it as a subset of some core model? - I can only see one reason not to, and I hate to say it, but some kind of pride that the work done thus far and commonly adopted *must* be seen to be 'perfect' - please, don't take that as any insult, as none is intended. There are clearly very strong opinions on both sides, and very valid reasons too - there's an easy solution that would keep everybody happy and allow all to get on being productive and innovative - why not enable this? In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other serializations of N3 to come along - I'd do that today, but you see I'm a huge linked data proponent and see almost unquantifiable gains from adopting linked data - but if what I do to get a full working model of the web of data doesn't qualify as valid RDF at some level and you all can't utilize it, then it's a wasted effort and a road to no where - this, is the real issue, and many others have hit it, and will hit it again and again as time moves on. Please, do consider, nobody need loose anything here Best, Nathan - :( Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as > subjects > > I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that > assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, > and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. > > Of course, the "correct" thing to do is to allow all three node types in > all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!) > > But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked > for this issue. > This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly) > No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change. > > It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct > > Jeremy > > >
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 16:11:53 UTC