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

RE: RE: XML/RDF

• To: 'Mike Champion' <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: RE: XML/RDF
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:30:22 -0600

It doesn't matter.  All the article does is show a 
way to use them together and to point out some 
inconsistencies that will arise if one doesn't 
and tries to apply both technologies. Surely that is fair.  

RDF may or may not be a killer app language (defined herein 
as "any idiot can use it and every idiot will"); in fact, 
I'm convinced it never will be.  I assert that 
for those who need a more model-theoretic sensible 
metadata system, it will gain more following.  I 
believe that like most niche languages, it thrives 
as well as the niche is needy.   So, for at least 
one project I've been working on, I'm a fan of 
RDF-friendly XML because for that project, it is 
likely that metadata will be a primary application 
of the information being tagged.  It seems sensible 
to make it lightly interoperable with other projects 
that have an ontology in the level 0 position of 
the monkey semantics.

len

From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...]

I'm not hostile to RDF (for localized domains in which effective
taxonomies exist, anyway, don't get me started about the "Semantic Web"),
just skeptical that it's worth a significant investment of my time.
Does anyone want to try to persuade us skeptics that RDF's time
has come?

• Prev by Date: Re: RE: XML/RDF
• Next by Date: RE: Character Entities: An XML Core WG View
• Previous by thread: RE: XML/RDF
• Next by thread: RE: XML/RDF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread