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

RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 05:03:03 -0800
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFAEDJIIAA.danny666@v...>
• Organization: Docuverse
• Reply-to: <donpark@d...>

Danny,

> RDF/XML may be butt-ugly and confusing, but IMHO the model is quite
the
> opposite.

I have no problem with RDF data model although I don't see anything
special about it.

> I have yet to see an XML application that couldn't be done without
XML, so
> that argument isn't particularly strong. The point is that in the same
way
> a lot of applications are considerably easier to implement using XML,
> quite a few applications are considerably easier with RDF, and such
> practical applications are now popping up all over the place.

You can't compare XML with RDF.  XML was generally accepted with minimum
controversy except from SGML folks.  RDF, on the other hand, is
extremely controversial.  Open Directory Project and RSS 1.0 use RDF,
but they didn't really need it.  I don't know what practical RDF
applications you are talking about.  If they are indeed 'popping up all
over the place' now, what were RDF folks doing all this time?

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
    • From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>

• References:
  • RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
    • From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>

• Prev by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Next by Date: Re: The truth about standards...
• Previous by thread: RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• Next by thread: RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread