W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Why Triples? (was Re: What do the ontologists want)

From: David Allsopp <dallsopp@signal.dera.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:16:02 +0100
Message-ID: <3B08EAE2.E19E684D@signal.dera.gov.uk>
CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> But if the Semantic Web is going to be useful to both people and machines, and not just machine-readable protocol, then
> aesthetics are going to play a role whether you like it or not. Make two tools available for the people, one taking
> aesthetics into account and the other not, it seems bloody more likely that the crowd will gravitate towards the aesthetic
> one. 

One can't assume that people will pick a solution just because it's the
most elegant. You only have to look at people's choices of programming
languages to see that this isn't the case.  There are some very ugly,
but very useful languages (and probably some ugly _and_ useless
ones...).  People will have a whole range of criteria of which elegance
is only one.  And often the problem is that time spent on refining the
elegance is taken away from time spent on functionality (and
marketing!), so people just choose pragmatic option that does what they
want straight away, even if it does it inelegantly.


David Allsopp.

/d{def}def/u{dup}d[0 -185 u 0 300 u]concat/q 5e-3 d/m{mul}d/z{A u m B u
m}d/r{rlineto}d/X -2 q 1{d/Y -2 q 2{d/A 0 d/B 0 d 64 -1 1{/f exch d/B
A/A z sub X add d B 2 m m Y add d z add 4 gt{exit}if/f 64 d}for f 64 div
setgray X Y moveto 0 q neg u 0 0 q u 0 r r r r fill/Y}for/X}for showpage
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 06:20:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:38 UTC