- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:49:37 +0100
- CC: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, 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>
Nathan wrote: > Ian Davis wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >>> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but >>> not >>> from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by >>> those >>> who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your >>> company took >>> a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have >>> implemented a >>> better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects >>> internally in >>> the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for there >>> to be >>> no further change for the rest of the world and for all future time. Who >>> knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this >>> change is >>> made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now? >>> >> >> I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment in >> the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level >> change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and >> deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling >> with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5 >> years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our >> investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of us >> also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology >> direction. >> >> I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general >> logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move >> towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression >> in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 >> implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have >> with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between >> them) > > Sounds good, doesn't break anything for anybody, and anybody who adopts > N3 get's all the deployed RDF goodness too! - from what Pat says it > seems RDF Semantics supports most of N3 apart from a few syntax bits and > the notable graph literals - perhaps an idea to try and get graph > literals in to the RDF Semantics before we hit this again in 2020 and > wonder why the then well supported N3 doesn't have them :) (at RDF Semantic level.. > my how this has came full circle, > > Best, > > Nathan > > >
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 07:50:49 UTC