[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: RDF and the new releases

• To: lists@a...
• Subject: Re: RDF and the new releases
• From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@b...>
• Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 17:51:25 -0600
• Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>,"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3DD6BD4A.2080903@a...>
• References: <AOEKLHGMHIHGNIBEDMNMOEIDDEAA.shelleyp@b...><3DD6BD4A.2080903@a...>

>As a part of the world's information in electronic form, the amount 
>of RDF in the world is trivial - it's not even dust. The problem is 
>that if RDF becomes widely adopted as an interchange, as I believe 
>it will be, in it's current form it will solve very little. Indeed 
>it may be just get it the way of what it was meant to do. Certainly 
>it will not meet the aims it was designed for as designed today.

Current form as RDF/XML? Or current form as in the entire model?

>
>>HTML was also "bad". But when XML came along we didn't throw out HTML
>>immediately. No, we came up with what is a compromise -- XHTML. It's a start
>>towards moving people in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but few
>>things in life are perfect.
>
RDF is utterly unlike HTML. Comparing HTML and RDF is like comparing 
ASCII to English.

>
>>The RDF Working Group was given a charter not to rewrite RDF/XML but to
>>answer issues and provide as much cleanup and clarification as they could
>>but to still remain within that support for previous implementations. It's
>>sad that one can't just throw things out and start over again, but that's
>>the way of the real world.
>
>Wrong on two counts. First, the proper job of technologies as 
>ambitious as RDF is to change the world. Second, RDF *was* thrown 
>out and started over from scratch the moment the W3 decided a model 
>theory was in order.

Really. Change the world, eh? Interesting interpretation of RDF.

>
>>But I do tire of people saying "bad", without specifics and solutions.
>
>Don't be ridiculous. Tim Bray has provided a simplified syntax (not 
>the first, but perhaps the first to get the needed attention). As 
>for specifics - the specifics are in four years worth of mail 
>archives on half a dozen lists, inclusding this one, if you care to 
>read it all.

Tim talked about his alternative RDF/XML over at my weblog. I think 
I'll let him respond in this mailing list about relying on that 
particular alternative, as is proper.

Shelley

• References:
  • RE: RDF and the new releases
    • From: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@b...>
  • Re: RDF and the new releases
    • From: lists@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: RDF and the new releases
• Next by Date: Re: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic systems
• Previous by thread: Re: RDF and the new releases
• Next by thread: RE: RDF and the new releases
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread