- From: Thomas Passin <tpassin@tompassin.net>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 23:55:15 -0500
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 11/26/2018 9:49 PM, David Booth wrote: > It is hard for very smart people to see why concepts that are simple to > them are *not* so simple for others who have significantly less > intellectual horsepower. Typically it is not any one concept that makes > a subject too hard, but the totality of the interaction between > multiple concepts, each with its own exceptions and caveats, that pushes > the user over his/her mental threshold of "too hard". It's not necessarily the case of not enough horsepower. Being able to read and digest the content of formal specifications, and being able to put that to use, isn't easy. It's very abstract, even more abstract than a lot of everyday programming. A lot of folks just don't do that well. It's been remarked before in this thread (I think by you?) that there isn't a lot of good tutorial material out there on how to understand and use RDF-related tools and data design. If you mean to make it easier for the middle ranks of programmers to work with linked data, then those people are going to have to understand quite a lot about semantics - since it's probably rare for two data sets to have exactly the same semantics for things that are apparently the same - and about data cleaning, truth maintenance, and imputation of missing data. Absent those things, for someone to blithely forge ahead linking data right and left is only going to cause trouble. So arguably it will be important to make *those* things easier for middle rank workers to understand and deal with. RDF details, not so much. We could probably put together a profile that disallows certain RDF usages and encourages certain idioms, and be done with that part of it. Then the hard work would start. TomP
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 04:55:43 UTC