[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:31:51 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Greg FitzPatrick wrote:
> Despite who or what is stupid, I guess I am not as brave as the
> kid who called the king naked, in saying that the syntax and model
> specifications are not the documents they should be
Too late! You just did. Bravo!:)
> if we are going to win converts to the RDF cause.
RDF concepts aren't bad at all...
> That this group of engineers made a sincere effort to implement
> RDF and failed, is saddening
The basic problem with RDF (actually the specs) is the XML part.
This was always a how-do-we-get-there-from-here problem. RDF has a
pretty detailed data model. It might have sufficed - as I believe at
one point it did - to consider XML as just one possible serialization
syntax. Most of the complications come from trying to shoehorn
everything into XML, with added "constraints" like "it's gotta work in
Netploder" - "work", of course, meaning "gets ignored". This led to
suboptimal decisions such as redeploying the HTML-inspired idea of
sticking a URL (a resource reference) into an attribute.
Unfortunately, I don't think it can be cleaned up. People are likely
to "get" RDF and then curse the syntax for making that process so
difficult.
Arjun
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************
|
