[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: <donpark@d...>
• Subject: RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• From: "bryan" <bry@i...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:06:20 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <000001c28f82$24b753f0$6401a8c0@rainbow>

Don Park
>  After years of
>TimBL and W3C pitching RDF hard, I have yet to see a single successful
>application of RDF that couldn't be done without RDF. 

I'm not a proponent of RDF or anything, but I've never really been able
to understand this argument, after all, most successful applications
that we see built with one particular technology could just as well have
been built with another. The question is not whether one has seen a
single successful application of RDF that couldn't be done without RDF
but whether one has seen such an application done better with RDF than
could be easily done without.

I'm not saying I have or anything. 

• References:
  • RE: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
    • From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>

• Prev by Date: My ongoing linking, browser support dillema
• Next by Date: RE: RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic
• 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