- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:51:21 -0700
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 7/1/2010 8:44 PM, Pat Hayes 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 I was asking for the economic benefit of the change, as opposed to the elegance benefit. Personally, I am wholly convinced by the elegance argument - but it will not convince my management, nor should it. I suspect there are several other companies and other open source activities that have investments that assume literals do not occur in subject position. Elegance is not, IMO, a sufficient argument to negate those investments. (The sort of thing we are talking about, is what sort of display is appropriate for a subject of a triple - we know that it is not a literal, so certain code paths, and options are not considered). Of course, in an industrial consortium costs to one member maybe justified by benefits to another - but costs to any member do need to be offset by some benefit to some member ... I have yet to see much of an argument (Henry got a small bit of the way), that there are any such benefits (i.e. ones which have a dollar, euro or yuan value). I have pointed to dollar costs ... I expect to see some such benefit. I don't think that expectation is unreasonable, more a boundary that keeps people honest ... and not just indulging in an intellectual game (he says politely). Jeremy
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 02:51:48 UTC