Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RDF and the new releases
 > > I'd go further. I think the current RDF/XML syntax is so B.A.D. (broken > as designed) that it has seriously got in the way of people being > open-minded about RDF. I'm baffled why the RDF working group has been > forbidden to work on replacing that syntax. -Tim > Because, Tim, there are implementations of RDF/XML as described, including Mozilla and RSS 1.0. I know you don't approve of them, but they are real, they are production, they are in use. Bitch about them as much as you want, but people use them. Someone mentioned recently that as grand as it sounds to just throw out a spec when everyone decides that it's "bad", one has to take into account existing customers. This includes at least 50+ tools and apis that are built on the existing RDF/XML, not to mention applications that are using these tools, APIs, and the RDF/XML as written. 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. 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. You came up with a RDF/XML that you say meets all of the requirements of the RDF model. Well, promote it and prove that it meets all the requirements of the RDF model. Then we'll use transformation to either convert your RDF/XML version to the one in the standards, or we won't because perhaps people will dislike yours too. In fact, as contentious as the XML world is, we can guarantee that people will find fault with whatever you come up with. With what anyone comes up with. It's a fact of a life. But don't just come along and say it's "bad" without coming up with a plan that will allow a better version to co-exist with previous implementations, and a strategy for deploying its use, all of which people will like _and_ that will meet the existing logically proven data structure behind RDF, which you don't seem to mind. And if you do come up with all of this, why, most likely I'll support your effort as much as I'm now supporting the existing implementation of RDF/XML. I am nothing if not open minded. But I do tire of people saying "bad", without specifics and solutions. Shelley 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
