- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjekje@ifi.uio.no>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:46:06 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On Wednesday 23. March 2011 10:34:54 tim.glover@bt.com wrote: > THANK YOU!!!!! Thank goodness someone is saying this at last. I have > watched in astonished amazement as University professors bickered for over > a decade on how to say “The cat sat on the mat”. This is a ludicrous waste > of effort. RDF is garbage and should be consigned to the dustbin of > history. I cannot agree with this sentiment. To me, RDF is the simplest thing that could possibly work. The fact that it hasn't taken off is largely due to a lack of willingness in the community to create development tools that developers with a great degree of Web development experience can feel at home in. In this case, this problem goes all the way down to the specification (i.e. the RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol), which I think is very bad. In part, it is also due to a lack of thought into what distinguishes the Semantic Web stack from other alternatives, and an occasional failure to exploit that to gain further momentum. For example, I'm convinced that without LimitByResource, which is a simple syntactic sugar thing, SPARQL cannot gain mainstream adoption. Many things could be achieved with RDF. We have the data, we have a lot of momentum, we have the plumbing. It could be immensly useful. We just need to make the extra effort to make it so. Best, Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo Ph.d. Student, Semantic Web kjekje@ifi.uio.no http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 19:46:37 UTC